Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 389 N.W.2d 876.

226 citing documents.

McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
McKee v. Laurion 825 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2013
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the United States
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
will not disturb a damage award unless the failure to do so would be shocking or would result in plain injustice.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation omitted); see Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., (“A jury award will not be set aside unless it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.”); Verhel v. Indep.
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
George, d at 10 (citing Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., ).
Engquist v. Loyas 803 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2011
Engquist v. Loyas 803 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2011
Rowe, d at 735 (); see also Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., (citing McDonough v. Brite Lite Elec.
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But “the duty or degree of care imposed on a party is fundamental law and objections to instructions relative thereto [can] be assigned for the first time in a motion for a new trial.” Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 228 , see also Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, (“Fundamental errors of law in jury instructions are reviewable on appeal so long as they have been assigned as errors in the motion for new trial.”).
Zutz v. Nelson 788 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2010
Zutz v. Nelson 788 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2010
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.” Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. 766 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2009
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., (recognizing qualified privilege for statements made by former employer for employment recommendations).
JW Ex Rel. BRW v. 287 INTER. DIST. 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
J.W. ex rel. B.R.W. v. 287 Intermediate District 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
JW Ex Rel. BRW v. 287 INTER. DIST. 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
J.W. ex rel. B.R.W. v. 287 Intermediate District 761 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the United States
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Dunn v. National Beverage Corp. 729 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
An appellate court “will not overturn a jury finding on the issue of falsity unless the finding is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.”
Phillips v. State 725 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Phillips v. State 725 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, (recognizing that doctrine applies in defamation action following separation of employment and person making defamatory statement knows that “the defamed person has no reasonable means of avoiding publication of the statement”); Keuchle v. Life’s Companion P.C.A, Inc., (Minn.App.20
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.
Rowe v. Munye 702 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2005
Rowe v. Munye 702 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2005
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S.
Minnwest Bank Central v. Flagship Properties LLC 689 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Minnwest Bank Central v. Flagship Properties LLC 689 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the United States
Stelter v. Chiquita Processed Foods, L.L.C. 658 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Stelter v. Chiquita Processed Foods, L.L.C. 658 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the United States
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
Morlock v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. 650 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 2002
Morlock v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. 650 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 2002
State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
State v. Gianakos 644 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 2002
See Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, Star Trib.
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
13 -88 (Minn.1986), that a suit for wrongful discharge could sound in tort, and we referred to wrongful discharge as a tort action in Graham v. Special School District No. 1, 120 (Minn.1991).
Jensen v. Walsh 623 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 2001
Jensen v. Walsh 623 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 2001
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Lewis v. Equitable Life As surance Soc’y of the United States
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Respondents rely on Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, as authority establishing that whether a statement is sufficiently definite to constitute an offer for a unilateral contract is a question of fact reviewable on appeal under a clearly erroneous standard.
Oaks Gallery & Country Store-Winona, Inc. v. Lee Enterprises, Inc. 613 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Oaks Gallery & Country Store-Winona, Inc. v. Lee Enterprises, Inc. 613 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Generally, “the truth or falsity of a statement is inherently within the province of-the jury.”
Rudebeck v. Paulson 612 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rudebeck v. Paulson 612 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 2000