Cited by

.”); Lake v. Wal -Mart Stores, Inc., (acknowledging the supreme court’s “power to recognize and abolish common law 10 doctrines”); (“[W]e retain the common-law authority to define torts and their defenses.”).

Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., d 231, 233 (Minn. 1998); Swarthout v. Mut.

“Publication of private facts is an invasion of privacy when one ‘gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another * * * if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of le gitimate concern to the public.’” Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (Am.

We have “the power to recognize and abolish common law doctrines” and “to define common law torts and their defenses.” Id.; see Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Ct. App. 1989); see also Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (stating that we look to the common law of other states to develop our common law).

11 While we have “the power to recognize and abolish common law doctrines,” Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., this power does not extend to statutory provisions that codify the common law.

Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores , Inc., (emphasis added).

Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Because Minnesota precedent has not addressed this precise issue in the harassment context, we turn to persuasive authority from the principles of privacy in tort recognized in Lake v. Wal -Mart Stores, Inc .

if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.’” Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

of Expose’s invasion-of-privacy claim require proof that Mattson published a statement that concerned his private life, that the statement “would be highly offensive to a reasonable person,” and that the statement “is not of legitimate concern to the public.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., (quotations omitted); see also Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., d 231, 235 (Minn. 1998) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (1977)).

See Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., –35 (Minn. 1998) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts definition of intrusion upon seclusion).

Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., -35 (Minn. 1998).

See Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Nearly 25 years later, in Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., we concluded that whether to recognize the tort of invasion of privacy was a "question of first impression,” stating that “[p]revious cases have addressed the right to privacy torts only tangentially, in dicta.” , 233 & n. 1 (Minn.1998) (citing Hendry, 303 Minn. at 319 , d at 923 ).

This court has the power to recognize and abolish common law doctrines, Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., as well as to define common law torts and their defenses, Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446, 467

Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

(stating that the supreme court “has the power to recognize and abolish common law doctrines.”); Silesky v. Kelman, 281 Minn. 431, 433 , (stating “[t]he court may modify the common law, adopting such of its principles as are applicable and rejecting such others as are inappl

5 See Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (citing Tuttle v. Buck, 107 Minn. 145, 148-49 , 119 N.W.

See Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Minnesota first recognized a tort action for invasion of privacy in Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Right of Privacy The Minnesota Supreme Court recognized the tort of invasion of privacy in Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., : Today we join the majority of jurisdictions and recognize the tort of invasion of privacy.

Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The district court also denied appellants’ motion to reinstate count III concluding that the supreme court’s recognition of invasion of privacy torts in Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., does not apply retroactively.

Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.