Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc., 428 N.W.2d 574.

26 citing documents.

Josh Campion, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Ctr., Inc., (explaining appropriateness of summary judgment when allegations underlying claim “are based on conjecture and speculation and are insufficient to create a jury question”).
Kimberly Hamson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Ctr., Inc., (“[W]here the totality of the evidence did not support a finding of malice, the matter should not have been submitted to the jury.”); (stating that malice becomes a jury question if the plaintiff’s evidence, viewed in the
Karen Marie Firman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Ctr., Inc., ( acknowledging that allegations based on speculation fail to create a jury question).
Jesse Smith, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ctr., Inc., (stating that claims “of malice .
Dennis Szymialis v. James Kuronen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Dennis Szymialis v. James Kuronen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ctr., Inc., (finding summary judgment inappropriate where fact issues existed as to whether terminated employee actually engaged in the behavior cited as the basis for her termination).
Sandra Williams v. Canterbury Inn Shakopee, LLC, d/b/a Americas Best Value Inn & Suites, d/b/a Arizonas Restaurant & … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sandra Williams v. Canterbury Inn Shakopee, LLC, d/b/a Americas Best Value Inn & Suites, d/b/a Arizonas Restaurant & … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ctr., Inc., (allegations based on speculation fail to create a jury question).
Loren J. Zutz v. John Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Loren J. Zutz v. John Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ctr., Inc., (“[A]llegations made by appellant in support of her claim of malice are based on conjecture and speculation and are insufficient to create a jury question.”).
Singleton v. Christ the Servant Evangelical Lutheran Church 541 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Singleton v. Christ the Servant Evangelical Lutheran Church 541 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Although the jury normally determines whether a defendant abused its privilege, summary judgment is appropriate when “[t]he trial court record shows no facts which would lead to the conclusion that [the defendant] acted against [the plaintiff] out of malice or ill will.”
Bolton v. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE 527 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Bolton v. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE 527 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The privilege results from a belief that “statements made in particular contexts or on certain occasions should be encouraged despite the risk that the statements might be defamatory.” Harvet v. Unity Medical Ctr., Inc.
Strauss v. Thorne 490 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 471 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 471 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc.
Lund v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 467 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Gunnufson v. Onan Corp. 450 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Gunnufson v. Onan Corp. 450 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc.
Stenger v. State 449 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Stenger v. State 449 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc.
Audette v. Northeast State Bank of Minneapolis 436 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Audette v. Northeast State Bank of Minneapolis 436 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
We disagree and hold the language in question is “understandable in (its) intent and effect.” See Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc.