Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Diesen v. Hessburg, 455 N.W.2d 446.

74 citing documents.

A25-1002 A25-1008 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
stated that “[t]here are other incidents of child abuse at [Goddard] that [DHS] did not investigate.” Goddard specifically “ denies that there were ‘other incidents’ of child abuse beyond what was investigated by the DHS.” “We have held on numerous occasions that truth is a complete defense to defamation and ‘true statements, however disparaging, are not actionable.’” (quoting Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co. , d 252, 255 (Minn. 1980)).
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Michelle Lowney MacDonald, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration Minn. 2021
When determining whether a statement is an opinion, we consider the statement’s “specificity and verifiability, as well as [its] literary and public context.” .
Debra Sakrison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Ryan Larson, Minn. 2020
At common law, if a “ ‘defendant juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them, or creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts, he may be held responsible for the defamatory implication, unless it qualifies as an opinion, even though the particular facts are correct.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting Prosser and Keeton on Torts, supra, § 116 (5th ed. Supp. 1988)).
Michelle L. MacDonald, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
Diesen v. Hessburg , , 453-54 (Minn. 1990) (citing Harte-Hanks Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton , 491 U.S. 657 , 685, 109 S.Ct.
Alby v. BNSF Ry. Co. 918 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Alby v. BNSF Ry. Co. 918 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
*566 Jerry's Enters., Inc., v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. , , 816 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted); Diesen v. Hessburg , , 452 (Minn. 1990) (stating that district court should not grant JMOL unless the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict and reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion or when the jury's findings are contrary to the law applicable in the case).
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
Mark Molitor, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jason Jalony Cox v. Dakota County Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jason Jalony Cox v. Dakota County Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kaytee Hooser v. Keith Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kaytee Hooser v. Keith Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
And defamation may be proven when “the defendant juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them, or creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts.” (quotation omitted).
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
(citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-40 , 94 S.Ct.
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“JMOL is appropriate when a jury verdict has no reasonable support in fact or is contrary to law.” (); see also Minn. R. Civ.
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
hen a district court considers a motion for judgment as a matter of law, it “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, and should not grant [the motion] unless the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict and reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion, (or) the jury’s findings are contrary to the law applicable in the case.” Diesen v. *888 Hessburg, (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Lester Building Systems v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. 761 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 2009
Lester Building Systems v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. 761 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 2009
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Longbehn v. Schoenrock 727 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Longbehn v. Schoenrock 727 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
Britton, d *655 at 524 ().
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
A district court’s grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict “is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
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 Toney v. WCCO Television, 85 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir.1996) (listing elements of defamation under Minnesota law); (discussing additional element of actual malice applicable to public officials).
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 633 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 633 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. 614 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 2000
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. 614 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 2000
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Honeywell, Inc. 611 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Honeywell, Inc. 611 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Gilbertson v. Leininger 599 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999
Gilbertson v. Leininger 599 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999