Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co., 390 N.W.2d 437.

38 citing documents.

A25-1002 A25-1008 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Co., (quotations omitted); cf. Oaks Gallery & Country Store-Winona, Inc. v. Lee Enters., Inc., d 800, 804 (Minn. App. 2000) (determining whether accurate version of statement would have had “same gist or sting”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Craig Stevenson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Co., (citing Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., ).
Jomari E Alexander, Sr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In addition, “the question of whether a statement is substantially accurate is one of law for the court.” Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.
James Jesse Hunter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
13 Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. , (“Expressions of opinion, rhetoric, and figurative language are generally not actionable if, in context, the audience would understand the statement is not a representation of fact.”).
Brian Madison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. , (“Expressions of opinion, rhetoric, and figurative language are generally not actionable if, in context, the audience would understand the statement is not a representation of fact.”).
A. Darlene Gibson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
If the statement is true in substance, inaccuracies of expression or detail are immaterial.” Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.
Generations Law Office, Ltd., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Expressions of opinion, rhetoric, and figurative language are generally not actionable if, in context, the audience would understand the statement is not a representation of fact.” Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., –41 (Minn. App. 1986).
Mark Molitor, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.
Kevin Holler v. Hennepin County Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kevin Holler v. Hennepin County Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If the statement is true in substance, inaccuracies of expression or detail are immaterial.” Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But “[t]he defamatory character of any particular statement must be construed in the context of the article as a whole.” Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.
Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 802 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 802 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Cf. Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., (stating burden of proof concerning falsity of statement in libel action).
Fine v. Bernstein 726 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Fine v. Bernstein 726 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
The statement in question is not necessarily the literal phrase published but rather what a reasonable reader would have understood the author to have said: “Expressions of opinion, rhetoric, and figurative language are generally not actionable if, in context, the audience would understand the statement is not a representation of fact.” Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.
In Re Panel Case No. 17289 669 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2003
In Re Panel Case No. 17289 669 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2003
Kuechle v. Life's Companion P.C.A., Inc. 653 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Kuechle v. Life's Companion P.C.A., Inc. 653 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Utecht v. Shopko Dep’t Store, -54 (Minn.1982) (noting that a publication may convey a defamatory innuendo); Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., (“The defamatory character of any particular statement must be construed in the context of the article as a whole.” (citation omitted)).
Bebo v. Delander 632 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Bebo v. Delander 632 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“Expressions of opinion, rhetoric, and figurative language are generally not actionable if, in context, the audience would understand the statement is not a representation of fact.” Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.
Oaks Gallery & Country Store-Winona, Inc. v. Lee Enterprises, Inc. 613 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Oaks Gallery & Country Store-Winona, Inc. v. Lee Enterprises, Inc. 613 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co. 594 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co. 594 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
On remand, this court in Jadwin stated that “[n]ewspapers have a qualified privilege when making a fair and accurate report of public records.” Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., (citing Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 455-57 , 96 S.Ct.
Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television 584 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television 584 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., , 440 n. 1 (Minn.App.1986) (burden of proving falsity lies on plaintiff in action against media defendant).
Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 561 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 561 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.
LeDoux v. Northwest Publishing, Inc. 521 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
LeDoux v. Northwest Publishing, Inc. 521 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. (Jadwin II)
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
appealed on other grounds
Poncin v. Arlt 428 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Poncin v. Arlt 428 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by