Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp., 766 N.W.2d 910.

129 citing documents.

Richard Adams, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
William P. Brady, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-19 (Minn. 2009); Schmitz v. Rinke, Noonan, Smoley, Deter, Colombo, Wiant, Von Korff and Hobbs, Ltd.
K&S Heating, Air Conditioning & Plumbing, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp ., –19 (Minn. 2009).
Trivedi, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“ [I]f the plaintiff presents evidence that the utterer knew the falsity of his statements when published, such bad faith in publishing is relevant evidence of malice”
Scott Raden, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. , (M inn.
Mansoor Akhtar, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
App. P. 103.04; see also Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. , -19 (Minn. 2009) (discussing the rea ch of Minn. R. Civ.
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Buckingham Trucking, Inc. v. Excel Manufacturing, Inc., and Excel Manufacturing, Inc., Third Party v. JWR, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Buckingham Trucking, Inc. v. Excel Manufacturing, Inc., and Excel Manufacturing, Inc., Third Party v. JWR, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Malice is not proved merely by the fact that the statement has been made or by the fact that the statement is later proven to be false.”
Dennis Lougee v. Craig Eugene Pehrson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dennis Lougee v. Craig Eugene Pehrson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
g that Pehrson’s statements to police were defamatory.3 “To establish a defamation claim, a plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) the defamatory statement is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff; (2) the statement is false; and (3) the statement tends to harm the plaintiff’s reputation and to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of the community.” -20 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted).
Jean A. Swanson v. Summit Orthopedics, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jean A. Swanson v. Summit Orthopedics, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jerry’s Enters., Inc., v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., Appellate courts “apply de novo review to the district court’s denial of a [r]ule 50 motion.” aff’d
Patrick Exner v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick Exner v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 50.01, the court may grant judgment as a matter of law if a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.” (quotation omitted).
Roxanne J. Soderholm v. Olivia Forar Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Roxanne J. Soderholm v. Olivia Forar Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[S]tatements made in the course of an employer’s investigation into employee misconduct are protected by the qualified privilege.”
James M. Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission, and third party v. Hydrocon, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James M. Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission, and third party v. Hydrocon, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James F. Christie v. Estate of Dilman Christie, Charles Christie Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James F. Christie v. Estate of Dilman Christie, Charles Christie Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“‘[S]tandards for granting summary judgment and for granting [JMOL] are the same.’” (quoting Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortg.
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A. v. Steven B. Curtis, intervening and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A. v. Steven B. Curtis, intervening and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Creative Wealth Strategies, Inc. v. Kathy Jo Hurd Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Creative Wealth Strategies, Inc. v. Kathy Jo Hurd Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that, after a jury trial, “a denial of a motion for summary judgment .
Lee D. Weiss, Weiss Capital Real Estate Group, LLC v. Private Capital, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lee D. Weiss, Weiss Capital Real Estate Group, LLC v. Private Capital, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sheryl v. Mooers v. City of Lake City, Minnesota, Karen England, individually Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sheryl v. Mooers v. City of Lake City, Minnesota, Karen England, individually Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Actual malice requires a showing that the defamatory statements are made from ill will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff.” (quotation omitted).
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
common-council member Michael] Wojcik defamed them.” “To establish a defamation claim, a plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) the defamatory statement is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, (2) the statement is false, and (3) the statement tend[s] to harm the plaintiffs reputation and to lower [the plaintiff] in the estimation of the community.” *464 -20 (Minn.2009) (quotation omitted).
Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC 835 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2013
Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC 835 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2013
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wolters 831 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2013
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wolters 831 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2013
Co., rev’d on other grounds
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
To establish the elements of a defamation claim in Minnesota, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defamatory statement was “communicated to someone other than the plaintiff’; (2) the statement is false; (3) the statement tends to “harm the plain *730 tiffs reputation and to lower [the plaintiff] in the estimation of the community,” -20 (Minn.2009); and (4) “the recipient of the false statement reasonably understands it to refer to a specific individual.”
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Isaac v. Vy Thanh Ho 825 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2013
Isaac v. Vy Thanh Ho 825 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2013
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012