Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Konchal v. NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 511 N.W.2d 447.

20 citing documents.

Hollis J. Larson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In determining whether a qualified priv ilege exists, we examine whether the allegedly defamatory statements were ma de “upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and based upon reasonable or probable cause.”
Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services 883 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2016
d at 736-37 ; (concluding that the urgent public policy considerations in Carra-dine are not applicable to an administrative personnel matter).
Creative Wealth Strategies, Inc. v. Kathy Jo Hurd Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nor does Hurd’s reference to “unethical actions” display the “actual malice” needed to defeat the qualified privilege accorded to statements “made upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and based upon reasonable or probable cause.”
Sheryl v. Mooers v. City of Lake City, Minnesota, Karen England, individually Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minke v. City of Minneapolis 845 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2014
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Because truth is an absolute defense to a claim for defamation, truth should also be a defense to a claim for tortious interference with a contract *597 arising out of an allegedly defamatory statement.
Zutz v. Nelson 788 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2010
(acknowledging the extension of absolute privilege to government officials acting in judicial or quasi-judicial capacities); (extending absolute privilege to Commissioner of Public Welfare in the performance of his official duties as a “top-level
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
Minnwest Bank Central v. Flagship Properties LLC 689 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
While we do not agree that Benson’s statements were protected by absolute privilege, (holding government supervisors not entitled to absolute privilege for allegedly defamatory statements made in the context of an administrative personnel matter), we concur with the district court that the statements were protected by qualified privilege.
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 582 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1998
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Jenson v. Olson, 273 Minn. 390, 392-93
Fieno v. State 567 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
Medicine Lake Bus Co. v. Smith 554 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Medicine Lake Bus Co. v. Smith 554 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Ins., should govern here on its facts.
Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Bolton v. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE 527 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
A statement 'is quali-fiedly privileged if it is “made upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and based upon reasonable or probable cause.”
BD. OF REGENTS OF U OF M v. Reid 522 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-50 (Minn.1994) (official immunity does not apply to defamation claims).
Dorn v. Peterson 512 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Jenson v. Olson, 273 Minn. 390, 392-93 , (absolute privilege applied to statements made at civil service hearing).