Cited by

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

385 citing documents.

Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co. 401 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“The crux of a disparate treatment claim involving an employer’s decision to discharge an employee is that the employer is treating that employee less favorably than others on the basis of an impermissible classification.” Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc., see Schlemmer v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc.
Minneapolis Police Department v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights 402 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minneapolis Police Department v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights 402 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
7(2) (1982); see also Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc., -46 (Minn.1983) (where plaintiff alleged retaliatory discharge for having filed a charge of employment discrimination by defendant).
Larson v. Hill's Heating & Refrigeration of Bemidji, Inc. 400 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Larson v. Hill's Heating & Refrigeration of Bemidji, Inc. 400 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
ates, “Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” A trial court’s findings of fact will not be set aside under the clearly erroneous standard if “they are reasonably supported by evidence in the record considered as a whole.”
Bersie v. Zycad Corp. 399 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bersie v. Zycad Corp. 399 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Leaon v. Washington County 397 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1986
Leaon v. Washington County 397 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1986
to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (1) the defendants' conduct must be extreme and outrageous, (2) it must be intentional or reckless, (3) it must cause emotional distress, and (4) the distress must be severe.
Klink v. Ramsey County Ex Rel. Zacharias 397 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Schlemmer v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Schlemmer v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“The crux of a disparate treatment claim involving an employer’s decision to discharge an employee is that the employer is treating that employee less favorably than others on the basis of an impermissible classification.” Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Klink v. Ramsey County Ex Rel. Zacharias 397 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Khalifa v. State 397 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Shea v. Hanna Mining Co. 397 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Shea v. Hanna Mining Co. 397 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Khalifa v. State 397 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Saltou v. Dependable Ins. Co., Inc. 394 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Saltou v. Dependable Ins. Co., Inc. 394 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Gruening v. Pinotti 392 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gruening v. Pinotti 392 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The Minnesota Supreme Court set forth a four-part test for establishing prima facie discrimination under the Act in Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Carlson v. Independent School District No. 623 392 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1986
Carlson v. Independent School District No. 623 392 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1986
See, Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Pikop v. Burlington Northern Railroad 390 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1986
Pikop v. Burlington Northern Railroad 390 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1986
In Minnesota, recovery for the intentional infliction of emotional distress is limited to those cases in which an aggrieved party can establish conduct that was “extreme and outrageous” and “intentional or reckless.” The conduct must also have caused emotional distress that is “severe.” Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc., -39 (Minn.1983).
Boyd v. DeGardner Realty & Construction 390 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Boyd v. DeGardner Realty & Construction 390 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Sigurdson v. Isanti County 386 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1986
Sigurdson v. Isanti County 386 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1986
See also, Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Potter v. LaSalle Court Sports & Health Club 384 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1986
Potter v. LaSalle Court Sports & Health Club 384 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1986
See Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc., (Title VII principles apply to the Minnesota Human Rights Act).
State ex rel. Johnson v. Floyd Wild, Inc. 384 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Fitzgerald v. Norwest Corp. 382 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Fitzgerald v. Norwest Corp. 382 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In several instances the Minnesota Human Rights Act has been construed using principles developed in Title VII cases “[b]ecause of the substantial similarities in the language and purposes of the two statutes.” Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Christenson v. Argonaut Insurance Companies 380 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Christenson v. Argonaut Insurance Companies 380 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
An independent cause of action for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress was first recognized in Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Jacobs v. Farmland Mutual Insurance Co. 377 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 1985
Jacobs v. Farmland Mutual Insurance Co. 377 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 1985
[3] Compare the evolution of recovery of damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress from a parasitic type of damages into an independent tort, as described in Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc., -39 (Minn.1983).
Cafferty v. Garcia's of Scottsdale, Inc. 375 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cafferty v. Garcia's of Scottsdale, Inc. 375 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
*853 the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Moore v. Dubbin 374 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Moore v. Dubbin 374 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
ANALYSIS The trial court’s findings in support of its determination will not be set aside “if they are reasonably supported by evidence in the record considered as a whole.” Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Hauge v. Country Club Market, Inc. 374 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Noble v. C.E.D.O., Inc. 374 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Noble v. C.E.D.O., Inc. 374 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Hauge v. Country Club Market, Inc. 374 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Under this standard, the court’s findings in support of its determination that Hauge failed to prove her allegations of discrimination will not be set aside “if they are reasonably supported by evidence in the record considered as a whole.” Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
Potter v. LaSalle Sports & Health Club 368 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Potter v. LaSalle Sports & Health Club 368 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Hubbard v. United Press Int’l., Inc.
Oswalt v. County of Ramsey 371 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Oswalt v. County of Ramsey 371 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The court found that the incident “caused the Plaintiff that type of emotional distress which would normally and naturally flow from such an incident regarding one’s homestead.” In Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc., the supreme court recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and listed four elements of proof necessary to sustain a claim: (1) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (2) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; (3) it must cause emotiona