Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Utecht v. Shopko Department Store, 324 N.W.2d 652.

56 citing documents.

Jomari E. Alexander, Sr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
McKee, d at 731- 32; Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store
Ryan Larson, Minn. 2020
See Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store, .
Samuel Zean, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Utecht v. S hopko Dep’t Store , d 652, 654 (Minn. 1982).
Larson v. Gannett Co. 915 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Larson v. Gannett Co. 915 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Mark Molitor, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ass’n, 236 Minn. 507, 510, d 230, 232 (1952); see Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store , (noting that a publication may either be defamatory on its face or “carry a defamatory meaning only by reason of extrinsic circumstances”).
J.K., a minor, by and through K. Kimball, as parent and natural guardian, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
5, 1990); see Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store , (ruling that more than mere negligence is required to show deliberate disregard necessary for a punitive damages claim); Bjerke v. Johnson , (affirming denial of a motion to add a claim for punitive damages when plaintiff’s affidavits showed “evidence of negl
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
In the context of libel, “a publication may be defamatory on its face; or it may carry a defamatory meaning only by reason of extrinsic circumstances.”
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
we reversed summary judgment on the existence of a qualified privilege based on the plaintiff's consent to the publication, stating there is “a factual question for a jury as to whether the publication was-within the scope of the consent.” .
Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store, -54 (Minn.1982) (noting that a publication may convey a defamatory innuendo); Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., (“The defamatory character of any particular statement must be construed in the context of the article as a whole.” (citation omitted)).
Schumacher v. Schumacher 627 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schumacher v. Schumacher 627 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store
Harman v. Heartland Food Company 614 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Harman v. Heartland Food Company 614 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store
Denman v. Gans 607 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Denman v. Gans 607 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Ortiz v. Gavenda 574 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Ortiz v. Gavenda 574 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store
Olson v. Moorhead Country Club 568 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Olson v. Moorhead Country Club 568 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store
Coyle v. City of Delano 526 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Coyle v. City of Delano 526 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store
CPJ Enterprises, Inc. v. Gernander 521 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
CPJ Enterprises, Inc. v. Gernander 521 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store
LeDoux v. Northwest Publishing, Inc. 521 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
LeDoux v. Northwest Publishing, Inc. 521 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store
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
Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 583 (1977).
Bains v. Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc. 497 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Bains v. Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc. 497 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store, (whether to allow an amendment to a complaint rests in the discretion of the trial court).
M.H. v. Caritas Family Services 475 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
M.H. v. Caritas Family Services 475 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
1 (1990); Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store, (where only negligence is pleaded, amendment to add punitive damages is properly denied).
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
Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
See Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t. Store, (affirming trial court’s denial of amendment of complaint to include punitive damages because evidence showed, at most, only negligence).
Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp., Ltd. 459 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp., Ltd. 459 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-67 (Minn.App.1986), pet.
Diesen v. Hessburg 455 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1990
McKenzie v. Northern States Power Co. 440 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
McKenzie v. Northern States Power Co. 440 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Davis v. Midwest Discount Securities, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Davis v. Midwest Discount Securities, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Sprangers v. Fundamental Business Technology, Inc.
Sprangers v. Fundamental Business Technology, Inc. 412 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sprangers v. Fundamental Business Technology, Inc. 412 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1987