Cited by

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

283 citing documents.

Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Company, -257 (Minn.1980).
Tsudek v. Target Stores, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Tsudek v. Target Stores, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Schaefer v. Bork 413 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Schaefer v. Bork 413 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In reviewing jury verdicts, all testimony “must be considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party,” and “a verdict will only be disturbed if it is ‘manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.’” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., (citations omitted).
Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co. 411 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co. 411 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
*907 Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Bahl v. Country Club Market, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bahl v. Country Club Market, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
5, 1985) (citing Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., ).
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp. 408 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 1987
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp. 408 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 1987
We have stated that “[i]n order for a statement to be considered defamatory it must be communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, it must be false, and it must tend to harm the plaintiffs reputation and to lower him in the estimation of the community.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
O'Brien Entertainment Agency, Inc. v. Wolfgramm 407 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
O'Brien Entertainment Agency, Inc. v. Wolfgramm 407 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Culliton v. Mize 403 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Culliton v. Mize 403 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
They rely on language contained in Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., : We agree that the New York Times “actual malice” standard was fashioned as an exception to the common law rule to permit the printed and electronic media to perform their function of informing the public about newsworthy people and events without undue fear of defamation liability.
Valento v. Ulrich 402 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Valento v. Ulrich 402 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis and Co.
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co. 401 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1987
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co. 401 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1987
Lewis, d at 890 ; Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp. 396 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp. 396 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Frederick v. Burke 397 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Frederick v. Burke 397 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
* * * Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., (citations omitted).
Frankson v. Design Space International 394 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1986
Frankson v. Design Space International 394 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1986
In order for a statement to be defamatory it “must be communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, it must be false, and it must tend to harm the plaintiff’s reputation and to lower him in the estimation of the community.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co. 390 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co. 390 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., -57 (Minn.1980).
Gits v. Norwest Bank Minneapolis 390 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. 390 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. 390 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-56 (Minn.1980); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 581A comment f; Williams v. WCAU-TV, 555 F.Supp.
Gits v. Norwest Bank Minneapolis 390 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 389 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 389 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
A jury verdict will not be overturned on appeal unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence, Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., and is such that no reasonable mind could find as did the jury.
Northfield National Bank v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Northfield National Bank v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
E.g., Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Frankson v. Design Space International 380 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Frankson v. Design Space International 380 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, P.A. 375 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, P.A. 375 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-26 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), quoting Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Woody v. Krueger 374 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Woody v. Krueger 374 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis and Company, Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 558-559 (1977).
Krueger v. Nordstrom 367 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Krueger v. Nordstrom 367 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Dailey v. Wiborg 366 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Palatine National Bank of Palatine v. Olson 366 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Palatine National Bank of Palatine v. Olson 366 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., *730
Dailey v. Wiborg 366 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis and Company
Blackburn, Nickels & Smith, Inc. v. Erickson 366 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 1985