Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc., 330 N.W.2d 428.

385 citing documents.

Anibal Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anibal Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
rkers’ compensation benefit litigation.” In a McDonnell- Douglas analysis, a causal connection “may be demonstrated indirectly by evidence of circumstances that justify an inference of retaliatory motive, such as a showing that the employer has actual or imputed knowledge of the protected activity and the adverse employment action follows closely in time.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., (concluding causal connection existed when employee was terminated two days after initiating action).
Mary Jo Delaney v. Cragun Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mary Jo Delaney v. Cragun Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.
Shuqin Liu v. Waymouth Farms, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shuqin Liu v. Waymouth Farms, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In order to establish a prima facie case where an alleged retaliatory discharge is involved, an employee must establish: (1) statutorily-protected conduct by the employee; (2) adverse employment action by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the two.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.
Charles Pearson v. Rohn Industries, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Charles Pearson v. Rohn Industries, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, -46 (Minn. 1983).
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A. v. Steven B. Curtis, intervening and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A. v. Steven B. Curtis, intervening and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
IIED has four elements: “(1) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (2) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; (3) it must cause emotional distress; and (4) the distress must be severe.” (quoting Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., -39 (Minn. 1983)).
Barbara Peterson v. HealthEast Woodwinds Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Barbara Peterson v. HealthEast Woodwinds Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To prevail on an IIED claim, a plaintiff must prove the following four elements: “(1) the [defendant’s] conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (2) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; (3) it must cause emotional distress; and (4) the distress must be severe.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., -39 (Minn. 1983) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(1) (1965)).
Cheryl Kaufenberg v. The Winkley Company d/b/a Winkley Orthotics & Prosthetics Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cheryl Kaufenberg v. The Winkley Company d/b/a Winkley Orthotics & Prosthetics Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The prima facie case for reprisal requires the plaintiff to establish “(1) statutorily-protected conduct by the employee; (2) adverse employment 10 action by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the two.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.
Sysdyne Corporation v. Brian Rousslang 860 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 2015
Sysdyne Corporation v. Brian Rousslang 860 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 2015
P. 52.01 (2014); Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.
Nancy Salscheider v. Allina Health System d/b/a Allina Hospitals & Clinics Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Nancy Salscheider v. Allina Health System d/b/a Allina Hospitals & Clinics Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A causal connection may be demonstrated by “showing that the employer has actual or imputed knowledge of the protected activity and the adverse employment action follows closely in time.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., Clark v. Chicago & N.W.
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 834 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 834 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
To recover on an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, a plaintiff must establish four elements: “(1) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (2) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; (3) it must cause emotional distress; and (4) the distress must be severe.” Hubbard v. United Press Int'l, Inc., -39 (Minn.1983).
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
Hansen v. Robert Half International, Inc. 813 N.W.2d 906 Minn. 2012
Hansen v. Robert Half International, Inc. 813 N.W.2d 906 Minn. 2012
Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.
Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Department 783 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Department 783 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hubbard v. United Press Int'l, Inc., -45 (Minn.1983).
Friend v. Gopher Co., Inc. 771 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Friend v. Gopher Co., Inc. 771 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
P. 52.01; Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.
Bahr v. Capella University 765 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bahr v. Capella University 765 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.
Monson v. Rochester Athlectic Club 759 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Monson v. Rochester Athlectic Club 759 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
To analyze disparate-treatment claims at the summary-judgment stage of proceedings, Minnesota courts use the McDonnell Douglas framework, which consists of “a prima facie case, an answer, and a rebuttal.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., -42 (Minn.1983) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct.
Larson v. Wasemiller 738 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2007
Larson v. Wasemiller 738 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2007
See, e.g., Schafer v. JLC Food Sys., Inc., (adopting section 7 of the Proposed Final Draft No. 1, Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (1998), which recognizes reasonable consumer expectations in food products liability cases); Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., -39 (Minn.1983) (adopting section 46(1) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which defines the elements necessary to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress).
GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota 730 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota 730 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., -46 (Minn.1983).
Wenigar v. Johnson 712 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Wenigar v. Johnson 712 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., -39 (Minn.1983).
Gee v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 700 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Gee v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 700 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.
Langeslag v. KYMN Inc. 664 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2003
Langeslag v. KYMN Inc. 664 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2003
We first recognized the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.
Olson v. First Church of Nazarene 661 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Olson v. First Church of Nazarene 661 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, -39 (Minn.1983).
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
y. Appellants argue that the district court erred by relying on Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., rather than on Kipp v. Mo.
Navarre v. South Washington County Schools 652 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2002

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by