Cited by

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

129 citing documents.

Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Co., see also 22 Britton D. Weimer, Clarance E. Hagglund & Andrew F. Whitman, Minnesota Practice-Insurance Law & Practice § 3:2 (2d ed.2010) (stating that determination of coverage requires analysis of “claims actually proven in the underlying trial, verdict and judgment”).
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
To establish a defamation claim in Minnesota, a plaintiff must prove four elements: he or she must show that the defamatory statement is “communicated to someone other than the plaintiff;” that “the statement is false;” that the statement tends to “harm the plaintiffs reputation” and to lower the plaintiff “in the estimation of the community,” -20 (Minn.2009); and that the recipient of the false statement reasonably understands it to refer to a specific individual, see Glenn v. Daddy Rocks, Inc.
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'n 811 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'n 811 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law is also reviewed de novo, and the evidence is viewed “in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.”
In re the Estate of Butler 803 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2011
In re the Estate of Butler 803 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2011
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
I. “We apply de novo review to the district court’s denial of a Rule 50 motion [for JMOL].”
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Appellate courts “apply de novo review to the district court’s denial of a Rule 50 [i.e., JMOL] motion.”
Engquist Ex Rel. Engquist v. Loyas 787 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Engquist Ex Rel. Engquist v. Loyas 787 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 784 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 784 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010