DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc., 637 N.W.2d 297.

26 citing documents.

  • Julie Massaquoi v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • Julie Massaquoi v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc.
  • A25-1002 A25-1008 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    Inc. , 38 (quotations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
  • Craig Stevenson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    In considering a defamation per se claim, the district court is tasked with first determining, as a matter of law, “whether the statements are reasonably capable of carrying a defamatory meaning.” Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc.
  • Madison Equities, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    See Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., (noting “the general principle that courts must interpret the defamatory- meaning element of a defamation action in light of the context surrounding the alleged defamatory statements”).
  • Emily Anick, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Rather, “[o]nly statements that present or imply the existence of fact that can be proven true or false are actionable under state defamation law.” Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
  • Stephen Svendsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Statements which cannot be proven true or false, such as “a subjective view, an interpretation, a theory, conjecture, or surmise” are not actionable because they do not assert “objectively verifiable facts.” Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
  • Jason L. Gabbert, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Inc., (quotations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
  • Katie Aase, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    the statement is not actionable.” Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
  • Laurie Jatho, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    .” Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
  • Jeffrey C. Brown PLLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Inc., 7 (Minn. App. 2001) (“‘ [D]efamatory per se’ defines a rule of damages, not of defamatory meaning .
  • Ashlee Kay Sames, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Inc., (“‘Defamatory per se’ means that damages are presumed and thus recoverable without proof of actual harm to reputation.”) , review denied (Minn. Mar.
  • Sumi Mukherjee, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
  • 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
    Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc ., , 303 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Mar.
  • Mark Molitor, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
  • Kevin Holler v. Hennepin County Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Kevin Holler v. Hennepin County Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
  • DOMAGALA v. Rolland 787 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • DOMAGALA v. Rolland 787 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., (“In general a jury charge should affirmatively set forth the law that applies and avoid the express exclusion of *671 a nonapplicable principle of law.” (citing Nubbe v. Hardy Cont’l Hotel Sys., 225 Minn. 496, 502-03 , )).
  • Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    “Only statements that present or imply the existence of fact that can be proven true or false are actionable under state defamation law.” Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
  • Longbehn v. Schoenrock 727 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Longbehn v. Schoenrock 727 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    “[D]efamatory per se defines a rule of damages, not of defamatory meaning.” Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc.
  • Marchant Investment & Management Co. v. St. Anthony West Neighborhood Organization, Inc. 694 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Marchant Investment & Management Co. v. St. Anthony West Neighborhood Organization, Inc. 694 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    “Only statements that present or imply the existence of fact that can be proven true or false are actionable under state defamation law.” Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., (citing Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 18-20 , 110 S.Ct.