Cited by

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

115 citing documents.

Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Mpls. 482 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Wikert v. Northern Sand & Gravel, Inc., pet.
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
Wilson v. Weight Watchers of Upper Midwest, Inc. 474 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Wilson v. Weight Watchers of Upper Midwest, Inc. 474 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The employer must also have reasonable or probable grounds for believing in the validity of the statement^]
Rico v. State 472 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1991
Rico v. State 472 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1991
Common law malice in the defamation context has a distinct definition: whether the defendant made the statement "from ill will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff.” (quoting McKenzie v. William J. Bums Inti Detective Agency, 149 Minn. 311, 312 , 183 N.W.
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
Even if revealing the contents of the memo to a coworker constituted gross misconduct, see Henderson v. Huecker, 744 F.2d 640, 644 (8th Cir.1984), the evidence did not compel the finding that the statement that Bradley was fired for gross misconduct was true.
Lund v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 467 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Lund v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 467 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Anderson v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Anderson v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 68 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