Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Frankson v. Design Space International, 394 N.W.2d 140.

55 citing documents.

Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, (stating that this court defers to the jury’s ability to “assess the weight and credibility” of testimony supporting an award for a defamation per se claim), rev’d on other grounds, Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., d 252, 259 (Minn. 1980) (stating that “appellate courts tend to leave the amount to be awarded [on a defamation per se claim] to the jury’s discretion”).
Kimberly Hamson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
If a plaintiff proves the elements of defamation, a defendant may argue that a privilege “operate[s] to defeat a defamation claim.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., see also Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, (noting that qualified privilege may be raised as an affirmative defense).
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
See Lewis , d at 889-90 ; see also Frankson v. Design Space Int'l , , 144 (Minn. 1986) (extending the employer's privilege to communicate the reason for discharge to communications between corporate employees who require the information to perform their job duties); Otto v. Charles T. Miller Hosp.
David Berger, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The existence of malice is generally a fact question, n.5 (Minn. 1999), but a reviewing court may resolve the question as a matter of law if th ere are no genuine issues of material fact, see Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, -45 (Minn. 1986).
Mark Molitor, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Frankson v. Design Space Int’l
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, -45 (Minn. 1986).
Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“‘Malice may be proved by extrinsic evidence of personal ill feeling, or by intrinsic evidence such as the exaggerated language of the libel, the character of the language used, the mode and extent of publication, and other matters in excess of the privilege.’” Buchanan, d at 738 (quoting Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, -45 (Minn. 1986) (quotation omitted)).
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
Bol, d at 150 (quoting Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, ) (holding that the plaintiff did not present evidence of exaggeration or the like that would create a fact question about malice for the jury).
Dube v. Likins Powell Hixon Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Busch v. Model Corp. 708 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Busch v. Model Corp. 708 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See, e.g., Frankson v. Design Space Int'l
Buchanan v. Minnesota State Department of Health 573 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Buchanan v. Minnesota State Department of Health 573 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, -45 (Minn.1986).
Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
Bol v. Cole 561 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 1997
Malice can be shown by extrinsic evidence of personal spite, as well as by intrinsic evidence such as “the exaggerated language of the libel, the character of the language used, the mode and extent of publication, and other matters in excess of the privilege.” Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, (quoting Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 231 , 203 N.W.
Dorn v. Peterson 512 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Dorn v. Peterson 512 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, see also McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 306 Minn. 93, 98-99 , (communication of suspicion to employees investigating alleged misconduct was privileged); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577 cmt.
Bauer v. State 511 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1994
Bauer v. State 511 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1994
In Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, we said that actual malice “is a jury question,” but this was not an abstract proposition to be taken literally.
Strauss v. Thorne 490 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Strauss v. Thorne 490 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Frankson v. Design Space Int’l
Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler 481 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler 481 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
E.g., Frankson v. Design Space Int’l, .
Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 474 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 474 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Frankson v. Design Space Int’l
Lund v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 467 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hunt v. University of Minnesota 465 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hunt v. University of Minnesota 465 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Frankson v. Design Space Int’l
McIntire v. State 458 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
McIntire v. State 458 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Frankson v. Design Space International , , 144 (Minn. 1986).
Holman v. CPT CORP. 457 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Holman v. CPT CORP. 457 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Connelly v. Northwest Publications, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Connelly v. Northwest Publications, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Karnes v. Milo Beauty & Barber Supply Co. 441 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Karnes v. Milo Beauty & Barber Supply Co. 441 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(citing Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., ).
Lee v. Metropolitan Airport Commission 428 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Lee v. Metropolitan Airport Commission 428 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Actual malice in Minnesota is defined as “actual ill will, or a design causelessly and wantonly to injure plaintiff.” (quoting McBride, 306 Minn. at 98 , d at 375 ).
Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Harvet v. Unity Medical Center, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
the supreme court noted that where the totality of the evidence did not support a finding of malice, the matter should not have been submitted to the jury.
Alexandra House, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 419 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Alexandra House, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 419 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See, (statement in a termination letter that an employee was terminated for failing to increase sales); (statement made during termination that employees’ conduct in refusing to obey an order to reduce the totals on their expense claims and
Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1988