Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 461 N.W.2d 374.

115 citing documents.

Emily Anick, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Applying qualified privilege to such a circumstance is incompatible with the requirement that the speaker must have “reasonable or probable grounds for believing in the validity of the statement, even though hindsight might show the statement to be false.”
Brian Madison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(concluding a “mere failure to investigate” does not establish malice in the context of actual malice and public figures); (concluding a company’s “failure to investigate” before firing an employee for theft does not “ris[e] to the level of willful indifference” consistent with common-law mal ice).
Penelope Isleman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 374, 379 (Minn. 1990).
Assata Kenneh, Minn. 2020
As we recognized 30 years ago, the “essence” of the Human Rights Act is “societal change”; “[r]edress of individual injuries caused by discrimination is a means of achieving that goal.”
Minn. 2019
abrogates the common law before determining that it is ambiguous); (“We presume that statutes are consistent with the common law unless there is express wording or necessary implication of the intent to abrogate the common law.”); –78 (Minn. 1990) (considering whether a statute abrogates the common law without first deciding that it is ambiguous).
Meagan Abel, Appellant, vs. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, et al., Respondents, St. Mary's University Minnesota, Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“ From the outset, the overriding purpose of the MHRA has been to free society from the evil of discrimination that threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of this state and menaces the institution s and foundations of dem ocracy.” (quotation omitted).
Ellis v. Doe 924 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2019
Ellis v. Doe 924 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2019
" Siewert v. N. States Power Co. , , 281 (Minn. 2011) (quoting Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. , , 377-78 (Minn. 1990) ).
Daniel v. City of Minneapolis 923 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 2019
Daniel v. City of Minneapolis 923 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 2019
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. , , 378 (Minn. 1990) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Stephani Martinsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp.
Paul Allen Bray, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
21 (“The legislature did not design the MHRA to redress intentional offensive physical contact already addressed by a tort battery action.”).
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Management Services, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Management Services, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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
n.4 (Minn. 1990); Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.
Melinda M. Binkley, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Kirk T. Lloyd, II … 877 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2016
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC, and third party v. Les Nielsen, third party 868 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC, and third party v. Les Nielsen, third party 868 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A plaintiff may pursue “two legal remedies for the same wrongful conduct.”
Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 853 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2014
Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 848 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2014
Columbia Casualty Co. v. 3M Co. 814 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Columbia Casualty Co. v. 3M Co. 814 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(concluding that “[w]hat we have here are two legal remedies for the same wrongful conduct,” and that the “plaintiff may pursue either or both [claims], provided, however, there is no double recovery”).
Siewert v. Northern States Power Co. 793 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2011
Siewert v. Northern States Power Co. 793 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2011
First, we presume that the Legislature does not intend to abrogate the common law unless it does so “by express wording or necessary implication.” -78 (Minn.1990) (citing In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 469 , ).
Erdman v. Life Time Fitness, Inc. 771 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Erdman v. Life Time Fitness, Inc. 771 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(prohibiting double recovery on parallel claims).
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
h, was made with a qualified privilege, and the employee did not present evidence to the contrary); see also Otto v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, 262 Minn. 408, 414 , (holding that hospital did not abuse its privilege by disseminating slanderous statement about employee suspected of starting fires in the course of an arson investigation); -81 (Minn.1990) (holding that qualified privilege did not apply because the employer repeated the allegations without taking any “steps to investigate but relie
Larson v. Wasemiller 738 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2007
Larson v. Wasemiller 738 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2007
Under the rules of statutory construction generally recognized by this court, a statute will not be construed to abrogate a common law right unless it does so expressly.’ -78 (Minn.1990).
Enright v. Lehmann 735 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 2007
Enright v. Lehmann 735 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 2007
Enright is incorrect, because the legislature may abrogate common law doctrines “by express wording or necessary implication.” -78 (Minn.1990).
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 732 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2007
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 732 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2007
Co., (stating that “if [a] statute is intended to abrogate the common law, the abrogation must be ‘by express wording or necessary implication’ ”) (-78 (Minn.1990)); 1A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 23:32, at 564 (6th ed.2002) (noting the common law rule of interpretation that the repeal of a repealing statute operates to revive the original enactment).
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Isles Wellness, Inc. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co. 703 N.W.2d 513 Minn. 2005
Isles Wellness, Inc. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co. 703 N.W.2d 513 Minn. 2005
Second, we generally presume that “statutory law is consistent with common law” and that if the statute is intended to abrogate the common law, the abrogation must be “by express wording or necessary implication.” -78 (Minn.1990).
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 684 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 2004
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
Stuempges, d at 256-57 (citation omitted)
Minnesota Equal Access Network Services v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad 646 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Means v. BURLINGTON NO. & SANTA FE R. CO. 646 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Means v. BURLINGTON NO. & SANTA FE R. CO. 646 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, -8 (Minn.1990); (Minn.App.
Minnesota Equal Access Network Services v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad 646 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, -8 (Minn.1990); review denied (Minn. May 26, 1999).
Loven v. City of Minneapolis 639 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 2002
Loven v. City of Minneapolis 639 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 2002
(rejecting double recovery for the same harm as a general matter).
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
See, -79 (Minn.1990) (holding that both statutory-cause of action for sexual harassment and common law cause of action for battery can be maintained even though both claims arise from same set of operative facts); Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc., -97 (Minn.App.1996) (allowing claim for retaliatory discharge