Cited by

“Under the common law, a plaintiff pursuing a defamation claim must prove that the defendant made: (a) a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff; (b) in an 16 unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) that harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in the community.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

For example, the Court has held that public figures and public officials must meet a higher standard when challenging defamatory statements, requiring proof of actual malice.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc.

a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not defendant published a false statement to the public of and concerning the business of the plaintiffs.” We agree that “[s]tatements that we have recognized as defamatory per se include ‘false accusations of committing a crime and false statements about a person’s business, trade, or professional conduct.’” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., d 868, 875 (Minn. 2019) (quoting Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Eng’g Co., d 655, 661 (Minn. 1987)).

If a plaintiff proves the elements of defamation, a defendant may argue that a privilege “operate[s] to defeat a defamation claim.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., see also Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, (noting that qualified privilege may be raised as an affirmative defense).

No single factor is ‘dispositive;’ rather, courts should ‘evaluate all the 8 circumstances of the speech, including what was said, where it was said, and how it was said.’” -85 (Minn. 2023) (applying the content-form-context test and concluding that a Facebook post about sexual abuse was speech on a matter of public concern), cert.

Absolute Privilege In Minnesota, “a plaintiff pursuing a defamation claim must prove that the defendant made: (a) a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff; (b) in [an] unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) that harmed the plaintiff’ s reputation in the community.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

(rule 12.02(e)); Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (rule 56); see also Davenport, 698 S.W.3d at 150 (reasoning that de novo review is appropriate because “UPEPA is most akin to an 5 We may rely on caselaw from other jurisdictions that have adopted UPEPA as persuasive authority because “[l] aws uniform with those of other states shall be interpr

An appellate court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolv[ing] all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, appellate courts “conduct a de novo review to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law to the facts.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

The elements of a common-law defamation claim are “(a) a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff; (b) in an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) that harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in the community.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

A plaintiff pursuing a defamation claim must prove, in relevant part, that the defendant made “a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc.

7 “Truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., n.2 (Minn. 2019).

Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolv[ing] all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

This assertion perhaps suggests that the accusation might qualify as defamatory, since one of the elements of a defamation claim is “a false and defamatory statement.” See Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., d 868, 873 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted) (listing defamation elements).

We view 7 “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc ., (quotation omitted).

Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., ; Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc.

DECISION To establish common-law defamation, the plaintiff “must prove that the defendant made: (a) a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff; (b) in an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) that harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in the community.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolv[ing] all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, “view[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolv[ing] all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., d 868, 874 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolv[ing] all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolv[ing] all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. , (quotation omitted).

at 654 (quotation omitted); see also Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., n.7 (Minn. 2019) (requiring “sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication,” and clarifying that evidence of “ill will” is insufficient (quotation omitted)).

SYLLABUS In this defamation case, when the totality of the circumstances are considered as required by Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., one party’s Facebook post accusing another of sexual assault did not involve a matter of public concern.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolv[ing] all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., d 868, 874 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolv[ing] all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc ., (quotation omitted).

Without any other evidence either that the DNR’s reasons are untrue or that her reporting motivated the DNR to terminate her employment, summary judgm ent was appropriately granted to the DNR because there is no genuine issue of material fact.20 See Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (holding that a party 20 Hanson claims that her good standing at the DNR before she was terminated is evidence that counters the DNR’s reasons for terminating her .

We view “the evidence in the light most fa vorable to the nonmoving part y and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc ., (quotation omitted).

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing “the evid ence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolv[ing] all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

We view “the ev idence in the light mo st favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

We therefore view “the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the no nmoving party and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolv[ing] all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc ., (quotation omitted).

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.”).

Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. , d 868, 875 (Minn. 2019).

Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc.

Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc.

“Under the common law, a plaintiff pursuing a defamation claim must prove that the defendant made: (a) a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff; (b) in an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) that harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in the community.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo , viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolv[ing] all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quotation omitted).

nd students and Equifax [regarding the termination of her employment] were false.” “Under the common law, a plaintiff pursuing a defamation claim must prove that the defendant made: (a) a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff; (b) in an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) that harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in the community.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. , (quotation omitted).

Speech on matters of public concern “occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., (quoting Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 452 (2011)).

Brodkorb is liable for neither statements by third parties, see Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., d 868, 873 (Minn. 2019) (defamation requires proof that the defendant made the statement), nor his opinions about the appropriateness of MacDonald’s press-conference attendance, see Diesen, d at 452.