Cited by

-30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).

No genuine issue for trial exists “when the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” (quotation omitted).

To establish defamation, McGill needed to prove: “(1) the defamatory statement was communicated to someone other than [McGill]; (2) the statement is false; (3) the statement tends to harm [McGill]’s reputation and to lower [McGill ] in the estimation of the community; and (4) the recipient of the false statement reasonably understands it to refer to a specific individual.” -30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).

The district court reasoned that based on Ecker’s position as the principal of the school, his statements regarding Hamson’s intelligence could “certainly harm [h]er reputation regarding her intelligence among her 7 peers.” (noting that t rue statements are not defamatory).

(explaining that “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of proving falsity in order to establish a successful defamation claim”).

Whether a statement reasonably carries a defamatory meaning is a question of law, and the words are construed as a whole and as “an ordinary person understands the language used in the light of surrounding circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

-30 (Minn. 2013) (stating that one of 3The district court added that, “[i]n viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [Norusis], the [district c]ourt will analyze these statements at face value, but there is a good argument to be made that [Norusis] mischaracterized what Mary Whitaker and Anne Reich

“The First Amendment protects statements of pure opinion from defamation claims.”

-30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).

McKee v. Laurion , -30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted).

McKee v. Laurion , (explaining that “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of proving falsity in order to establish a successful defamation claim”).

The appellate court must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the party against whom the summary judgment was granted.”

Among other elements, a plaintiff pursuing a defamation claim must prove that the defendant made “a false and defamato ry statement about the plaintiff.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (“The plaintiff has the burden of proving falsity in order to establish a successful defamation claim.”).

McKee v. Laurion , 9-30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted).

(stating that the First Amendment protects pure opinion statements, which cannot be proven true or false, from defamation claims).

“The question of whether a statement’s language reasonably conveys 10 a defamatory meaning is one of law.” McKee v. Laurion

4 -30 (Minn. 2013) (alteration in original) (quotations and citation omitted).

3 While a district court’s summary-judgment decision is reviewed de novo, d 725, 729 (Minn. 2013), this court reviews “a district court’s evidentiary rulings, including rulings on foundational reliability, for an abuse of discretion,” Doe 76C v. Archdiocese of St.

–30 (Minn. 2013) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The First Amendment protects statements of pure opinion from defamation claims.” McKee v. Laurion

cannot be the basis for a defamation action.” d 725, 733 (Minn. 2013) .

See McKee v. Laurion , (recognizing that whether a statement conveys a defamatory meaning depends on how an ordinary person 6 Bowlin’s reference to possible criminal consequences or revocation of McGuire’s license is consistent with the potential consequences in cases of

“As a general rule, the truth or falsity of a statement is a ques tion for the jury.”

McKee v. Laurion , , 729-30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).

“If the statement is true in substance, minor inaccuracies of ex pression or detail are immaterial.” (citing Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 516 (19 91)).

Falsity in a defamation action means that the alleged statement is not “substantially true,”

“No genuine issue for trial exists when the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” d 725, 729 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).

“No genuine issue for trial exists when the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” d 725, 729 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).

16 establish four elements: “(1) the defamatory statement was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff; (2) the statement is false; (3) the statement tends to harm the plaintiff’s reputation and to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of the community; and (4) the recipient of the false statement reasonably understands it to refer to [the plaintiff].” -30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted).

“No genuine issue for trial exists when the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” (quotations omitted).

–30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted).