Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Britton v. Koep, 470 N.W.2d 518.

32 citing documents.

Don Magnuson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
v. Hallaway, 564 F.Supp.2d 1047, 1051 (D. Minn. 2008); see Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co. , (acknowledging that a negligence standard for private individuals asserting defam ation claims has been adopted in Minnesota); see also Britton v. Koep , (stating that the elements of a cause of action for defamation include, among other things, “at least negligence”).
Dalvin Cook, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Byron Johnson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Britton v. Koep , -21 (Minn. 1991).
Ryan Larson, Minn. 2020
Unlike an absolute privilege, 5 See, (noting that “Minnesota was in the forefront for protection of public debate” by recognizing a qualified privilege for “[f]air comment on the conduct of public officials”); Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., (recognizing a qualified privilege fo
Criticized Michelle L. MacDonald, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Unlike a public official, “[a] person becomes a public figure not by her government employment, but by voluntarily entering a public controversy.” Britton v. Koep , n.1 (Minn. 1991) .
McGuire v. Bowlin 932 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 2019
McGuire v. Bowlin 932 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 2019
Britton v. Koep , , 520 (Minn. 1991).
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc. 929 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2019
Britton v. Koep , , 521 (Minn. 1991).
Nathan C. McGuire, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A plaintiff asserting a defamation claim must prove the defendant made (1) a false statement about the plaintiff, (2) in “unprivileged publication to a third party,” (3) that harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in the community , and (4) “fault, at least negligence.”
Patrick Exner v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick Exner v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When the plaintiff is a public official and the statement relates to the individual’s official conduct, the plaintiff must prove not only that the statement was false, but also that the statement was made with actual malice.” ().
Loren J. Zutz v. John Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Loren J. Zutz v. John Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
cannot recover damages for publications of false and defamatory content which relate to his or her official conduct unless he or she proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice.’” (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279, 84 S. Ct. 710, 725 (1964)).
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review 668 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review 668 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc. 663 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2003
Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc. 663 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2003
(“The elements of a cause of action for defamation include a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff * * *.”); Doe v. Methodist Hosp., 690 N.E.2d 681, 687 (Ind.
Chafoulias v. Peterson 642 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Chafoulias v. Peterson 642 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co. 610 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2000
Moreno v. Crookston Times Printing Co. 610 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2000
See, (recognizing a qualified privilege for fair comment on performance of public officials).
W.J.L. v. Bugge 573 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1998
W.J.L. v. Bugge 573 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1998
Hunter v. Hartman 545 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Hunter v. Hartman 545 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
710, 726 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)
Elstrom v. Independent School District No. 270 533 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Elstrom v. Independent School District No. 270 533 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
LeDoux v. Northwest Publishing, Inc. 521 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
LeDoux v. Northwest Publishing, Inc. 521 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 349-50 , 94 S.Ct.