Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252.

283 citing documents.

Kay v. Peter Motor Co., Inc. 483 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Pirkov-Middaugh Ex Rel. Middaugh v. Gillette Children's Hospital 479 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pirkov-Middaugh Ex Rel. Middaugh v. Gillette Children's Hospital 479 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Stuempges v. Parke Davis & Co.
Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler 481 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler 481 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 474 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 474 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Jones v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 474 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Wilson v. Weight Watchers of Upper Midwest, Inc. 474 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Jones v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 474 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Wilson v. Weight Watchers of Upper Midwest, Inc. 474 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(quoting Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., -57 (Minn.1980).
Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings Bank 471 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1991
Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings Bank 471 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1991
Recognizing that this court does not disturb an award of punitive damages unless that award is so excessive as to be unreasonable, see Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., we conclude that both Bucko and Jaskowiak, who proved compensable damages, are entitled to punitive damages in the amounts awarded at trial.
Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 471 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 471 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Although an employer’s nonmali-cious communications are conditionally privileged, see Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., -57 (Minn.1980), the jury found that the supervisor’s statements were made with actual malice, defeating the privilege.
Johnson v. Northside Residents Redevelopment Council 467 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Johnson v. Northside Residents Redevelopment Council 467 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
This introduces a subjective element into the trial court’s determination of a motion for summary judgment, raising the question whether the statement was made “from ill will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., (quoting McKenzie v. William J. Burns Int’l Detective Agency, Inc., 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 N.W.
Lund v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 467 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Lund v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 467 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Hunt v. University of Minnesota 465 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hunt v. University of Minnesota 465 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Graham v. Special School District No. 1 462 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Graham v. Special School District No. 1 462 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
McIntire v. State 458 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
McIntire v. State 458 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
*Page 720 Stuempges v. Parke, Davis Co. , , 255 (Minn. 1980).
Diesen v. Hessburg 455 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1990
Diesen v. Hessburg 455 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1990
We have held on numerous occasions that truth is a complete defense to defamation and “true statements, however disparaging, are not actionable.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., (employer’s statements about work record of former employee deemed false and defamatory); see also Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., -57 (Minn.1980).
Gunnufson v. Onan Corp. 450 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Gunnufson v. Onan Corp. 450 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Company
Foley v. WCCO Television, Inc. 449 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Foley v. WCCO Television, Inc. 449 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Rutherford v. County of Kandiyohi 449 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rutherford v. County of Kandiyohi 449 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Aitkin County Family Service Agency ex rel. Wiebrand v. Gangl 441 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Aitkin County Family Service Agency ex rel. Wiebrand v. Gangl 441 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Karnes v. Milo Beauty & Barber Supply Co. 441 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Karnes v. Milo Beauty & Barber Supply Co. 441 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(citing Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., ).
Ross v. University of Minnesota 439 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Ross v. University of Minnesota 439 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Estate of Hartz v. Nelson 437 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Estate of Hartz v. Nelson 437 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Poncin v. Arlt 428 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Poncin v. Arlt 428 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In any defamation action, “true statements, however disparaging, are not actionable.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Lee v. Metropolitan Airport Commission 428 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Lee v. Metropolitan Airport Commission 428 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Company
Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Stuempges v. Park, Davis & Co.
Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1988