Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Dirkswager, 315 N.W.2d 215.

68 citing documents.

Thaleaha McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. Minn. 2025
Thaleaha McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. Minn. 2025
1103, 1103 (Minn. 1895) (considering whether statements published in a court pleading are “absolutely privileged” and may not “be made the basis of an action for libel or slander”); (statements made by participants in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged and “will not support a civil action for defamation”); d 215, 223 (Minn. 1982) (high-level agency official “has an absolute privilege, in the performance of .
Minn. 2025
1103, 1103 (Minn. 1895) (considering whether statements published in a court pleading are “absolutely privileged” and may not “be made the basis of an action for libel or slander”); (statements made by participants in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged and “will not support a civil action for defamation”); d 215, 223 (Minn. 1982) (high-level agency official “has an absolute privilege, in the performance of .
A24-1331 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
see also Harlow, d at 572-73 (determining that a deputy commissioner is “a top-level cabinet-equivalent official” and concluding that “a deputy commissioner of DHS, whose position and duties are defined by Minn. Stat. § 15.06, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster Minn. 2025
tor vehicle, we do not address that issue.”); d 541, 551 n.4 (Minn. 2010) (noting that, because the parties did not raise an issue, the issue was not before the court); n.4 (Minn. 1998) (declining to address an issue discussed by the court of appeals because neither party raised it before the supreme court); (electing not to base the court’s decision on an issue that appellants did not raise or brief).
Ryan Larson, Minn. 2020
d faith, on a proper occasion, with a proper motive, and upon reasonable or probable 4 We have applied an absolute privilege to statements made by participants in judicial proceedings, statements made by a high-level agency official in the performance of official duties, and statements made by a state trooper in a written arrest report, –37 (Minn. 1994).
Heilman v. Courtney 926 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 2019
Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services 883 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2016
Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services 883 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2016
Jerry Expose, Jr. v. Thad Wilderson & Associates, P. A., Nina Mattson 863 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerry Expose, Jr. v. Thad Wilderson & Associates, P. A., Nina Mattson 863 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that state official was entitled to absolute privilege because he was “required by law,” i.e., data privacy act, to disclose reason for termination of plaintiff’s employment).
Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services 862 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services 862 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2(a)(5); (“[I]t is no violation of the [MGDPA] to tell the reporter about the contents of a public document.”).
Minke v. City of Minneapolis 845 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2014
Minke v. City of Minneapolis 845 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2014
Zutz v. Nelson 788 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2010
Zutz v. Nelson 788 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2010
(acknowledging the extension of absolute privilege to government officials acting in judicial or quasi-judicial capacities); (extending absolute privilege to Commissioner of Public Welfare in the performance of his official duties as a “top-level cabinet-type” official).
Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 582 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1998
Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 582 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1998
§ 548.06 (1996) (providing that published retraction may mitigate damages); (absolute privilege in defamation for public service or administration of justice); Mahnke v. Northwest Publications Inc., 280 Minn. 328, (conditional privilege regarding public officials and candidates for office — official must prove actual malice); Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 1
Buchanan v. Minnesota State Department of Health 573 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Buchanan v. Minnesota State Department of Health 573 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
The purpose of an absolute privilege is to promote the public good by keeping “the public informed of the public’s business,” and its application “should be confined to situations where the public service or the administration of justice requires it.”
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Redwood County Telephone Co. v. Luttman 567 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Redwood County Telephone Co. v. Luttman 567 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
the supreme court first recognized that an absolute privilege to make defamatory communications applied to a public executive official.
Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
See, -37 (Minn.1994); -23 (Minn.1982).
Zagaros v. Erickson 558 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Zagaros v. Erickson 558 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(describing positions entitled to absolute immunity).
Hegner v. Dietze 524 N.W.2d 731 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Hegner v. Dietze 524 N.W.2d 731 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
2d 654, 658 (1971) (general counsel and general manager of subordinate economic organization of tribe absolutely immune from suit); -91 (Minn.App.1994) (Indian tribe’s sovereign immunity extended to tribe’s attorney; attorney had absolute immunity to publish defamatory statement made in course of duties as tribal spokesperson); (Commissioner of Department of Public Welfare had an absolute privilege to publish defamatory statement).
Diver v. Peterson 524 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Diver v. Peterson 524 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(high level executive officers have absolute immunity from suit for defamatory statements made in the course of their duties).
BD. OF REGENTS OF U OF M v. Reid 522 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
BD. OF REGENTS OF U OF M v. Reid 522 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Carradine v. State 511 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1994
Bauer v. State 511 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1994
Bauer v. State 511 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1994
the Commissioner of Welfare was sued for defamation by a state hospital superintendent whose termination he had announced.
Carradine v. State 511 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1994
we held, unanimously, that the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare — who is obviously a high level executive officer — enjoys such immunity.
Villarreal v. Independent School District 659 505 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Villarreal v. Independent School District 659 505 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 504 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin 504 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(due care in the execution of a statute immunity under Minn.Stat.
LeBaron v. Minnesota Board of Public Defense 499 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
LeBaron v. Minnesota Board of Public Defense 499 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 591 (1977).
Carradine v. State 494 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Carradine v. State 494 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
2(c), 3, 4(f), 16 (1986) and the Minnesota Supreme Court’s