Cited by

Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.

Both types of privilege are broadly recognized across the United States, and generally ‘result[] from the court’s determination that statements made in particular contexts or on certain occasions should be encouraged despite the risk that the statements might be defamatory.’ ” (quoting Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, ); Harlow v. State Dep’t of Hum.

Both types of privilege are broadly recognized across the United States, and generally ‘result[] from the court’s determination that statements made in particular contexts or on certain occasions should be encouraged despite the risk that the statements might be defamatory.’ ” (quoting Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc ’y, ); Harlow v. State Dep’t of Hum.

Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y. of the U.S.

Lewis v. Equitable Life 9 Assurance Soc’y, -90 (Minn. 1986).

“If the first three 4 d 876, 885 (Minn. 1986), Dabney argues that fundamental errors of law in jury instructions are reviewable on appeal, provided that the appellant raised the errors in a motion for a new trial.

Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.

Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the United States

“A qualified privilege is abused and therefore lost if the plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant acted with actual malice.”1 Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.

Soc’y of the U.S., d 876, 889-90 (Minn. 1986); bad credit references from lending institutions, Froslee v. Lund’s State Bank of Vining, 155 N.W.

Soc’y. of the U.S., d 876, 885 (Minn. 1986).

Soc ’y, (holding that, when a jury instruction has misstated the law, “reversal is not required unless the error in the instructions was prejudicial” to the party seeking reversal).

See, e.g., Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S. , ( concluding that a handbook section on job security amounted only to a general statement of policy, whereas 10 a section on employee dismissals constituted contractual terms) ; Pine River, d at 630 (holding similarly that a job security section in an employee ha ndbook did not consti

Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., (“[T]he truth or falsity of a statement is inherently within the province of the jury.”).

These privileges exist because “statements made in particular contexts or on certain occasions should be encouraged despite the risk that the statements might be defamatory.” Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.

Both exist because “statements made in particular contexts or on certain occasions should be encouraged despite the risk that the statements might be defamatory.” Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.

of the U.S. , and the evidence in the case, Poppenhagen v. Sornsin Const. Co. , 86 ( Minn. 1974).

Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the U. S. , , 889 (Minn. 1986).

“In the context of employment recommendat ions, the law generally recognizes a qualified privilege between former and prospective employers as long as the statements are made in good faith and for a legitimate purpose.” Lewis v. Equitable Life 14 Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., Stuempges, d at 257.

Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.

of the U.S., but the burden remains on appellant to establish a successful defamation claim, McKee, d at 730.

Punitive damages are an extraordinary remedy “to be allowed with caution and within narrow limits .” Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.

of the U.S., (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 593 (1977)).

n.4 (Minn. 1990); Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.

Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.

of the U.S., -91 (Minn. 1986).

A qualified privilege only protects statements if the privilege is not "abused.” Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.

(noting that the Minnesota Supreme Court “has not made clear” whether the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing exists in employment contracts); Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., (“We have never decided whether such a condition of good faith is read into employment contracts.”); Guercio v. Prod.

.” Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.

Punitive damages are an extraordinary remedy “to be allowed with caution and within narrow limits.” Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.

v. 287 Intermediate Dist., (citing Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., ).

See Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.