Cited by

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

26 citing documents.

Julie Massaquoi, et al v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Julie Massaquoi, et al v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc.
A25-1008 N A BROTHERS LLC, d/b/a Goddard School of Albertville v. Heather Werts, et al. (A25-0930) (A25-1002, A25-1008), … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Inc. , 38 (quotations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Craig Stevenson, et al v. Sean Stevenson, et al 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. v. SEIU MN State Council, et al 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 v. Frank Bonsante 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 v. William Lobb, et al., Woodland Baptist Church, Darrell R. Friar, Minnesota Association of Regular Baptist … 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 v. Star Tribune Media Company, LLC, Gail Van Der Linden, and Susan Seim Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Inc., (quotations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Katie Aase v. Megan Hamilton 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 v. Northeast Title Company Minn. Ct. App. 2020
.” Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Jeffrey C. Brown PLLC, et al v. Gold Star Taxi and Transportation Service Corporation, et al 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 v. Scott County, et al 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 v. Lisa Vipperman 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 v. Stephanie Molitor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Kevin Holler, et al v. Hennepin County, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kevin Holler, et al v. Hennepin County, et al 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.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by