Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 725.

62 citing documents.

A25-1243 A25-1281 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).
Julie Massaquoi v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Julie Massaquoi v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
John Donahue, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
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).
A25-1002 A25-1008 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Accredited Electrical Solutions, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
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).
Robert E. Villanueva v. Circle K Stores Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Robert E. Villanueva v. Circle K Stores Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Kimberly Hamson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
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).
Madison Equities, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(explaining that “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of proving falsity in order to establish a successful defamation claim”).
Emily Anick, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Stephen Svendsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
Dr. Eric Ringsred, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
John P. Norusis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-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
Jason L. Gabbert, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The First Amendment protects statements of pure opinion from defamation claims.”
Shanon Renee Harper, DNP, NP, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).
Louis Reis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
McKee v. Laurion , -30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted).
Jesse Smith, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
McKee v. Laurion , (explaining that “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of proving falsity in order to establish a successful defamation claim”).
Jomari E. Alexander, Sr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The appellate court must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the party against whom the summary judgment was granted.”
Jomari E Alexander, Sr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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.”).
James Jesse Hunter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
McKee v. Laurion , 9-30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted).
Richard W Bandimere, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that the First Amendment protects pure opinion statements, which cannot be proven true or false, from defamation claims).
Brian Madison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Katie Aase, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The question of whether a statement’s language reasonably conveys 10 a defamatory meaning is one of law.” McKee v. Laurion
Jeffrey C. Brown PLLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
4 -30 (Minn. 2013) (alteration in original) (quotations and citation omitted).
Midland Funding LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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.
Ryan Larson, Minn. 2020
–30 (Minn. 2013) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Michelle L. MacDonald, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Ashlee Kay Sames, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The First Amendment protects statements of pure opinion from defamation claims.” McKee v. Laurion
Generations Law Office, Ltd., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
cannot be the basis for a defamation action.” d 725, 733 (Minn. 2013) .
Nathan C. McGuire, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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
Hollis J. Larson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“As a general rule, the truth or falsity of a statement is a ques tion for the jury.”
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
McKee v. Laurion , , 729-30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).
Stephani Martinsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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)).
Trivedi, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mark Molitor, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Range Development Company of Chisholm v. Star Tribune, Paul McEnroe 885 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Range Development Company of Chisholm v. Star Tribune, Paul McEnroe 885 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Falsity in a defamation action means that the alleged statement is not “substantially true,”
Hammes West, LLC v. Dorothy Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hammes West, LLC v. Dorothy Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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).
NJK Holding Corporation v. The Araz Group, Inc. 878 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
NJK Holding Corporation v. The Araz Group, Inc. 878 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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).
LaVonne Pfeil, Individually and as Trustee for Heirs of Henry Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of … 877 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2016
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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).
Richard J. Hartfiel v. Raymond Wilburn Allison, T. J. Potter Trucking, Inc., Westfield Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Richard J. Hartfiel v. Raymond Wilburn Allison, T. J. Potter Trucking, Inc., Westfield Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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).
Teresa McDonald v. Allina Health System d/b/a United Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Teresa McDonald v. Allina Health System d/b/a United Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–30 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted).