Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hunt v. University of Minnesota, 465 N.W.2d 88.

53 citing documents.

A25-1002 A25-1008 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
of Minn., (citing Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc. , 788 F.2d 1300, 1302-03 (8th Cir. 1996)).
Emily Anick, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Dr. Eric Ringsred, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
of Minn., (stating that “an amendment to a complaint may properly be denied when the additional alleged claim cannot be maintained”).
Jesse Smith, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Aaron Olson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
of Minn. , (“[A]n amendment to a complaint may properly be denied when the additional alleged claim cannot be maintained.”).
James Jesse Hunter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
of Minn., -94 (Minn. App. 1991).
Brian Madison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Travis Colsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Lynda Jo Blom, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Samuel Zean, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
of Minn. , (stating that “an amendment to a complaint may properly be denied when the additional alleged claim cannot be maintained”).
Ashlee Kay Sames, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
of Minn. , d 88, 93 (Minn. App. 1991); Lee v. Metro.
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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
of Minn., (same); Midway Manor Convalescent & Nursing Home, (relying on Witte, noting basis for subject tort).
Fine v. Bernstein 726 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Fine v. Bernstein 726 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
LaFee v. Winona County 655 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
LaFee v. Winona County 655 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Stead-Bowers v. Langley 636 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Stead-Bowers v. Langley 636 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
of Minn., see also Bib Audio-Video Prods.
Bebo v. Delander 632 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Bebo v. Delander 632 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“[Statements which cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts, are absolutely protected by the First Amendment.” (citation omitted).
Schumacher v. Schumacher 627 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schumacher v. Schumacher 627 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Smith v. Woodwind Homes, Inc. 605 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Smith v. Woodwind Homes, Inc. 605 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Although motions to amend should be freely granted, such amendments “may properly be denied when the additional alleged claim cannot be maintained.” (citation omitted).
Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Ortiz v. Gavenda 574 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Ortiz v. Gavenda 574 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
While the district court “should freely grant motions to amend when justice requires,” such amendments “may properly be denied when the additional alleged claim cannot be maintained.”
Olson v. Moorhead Country Club 568 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Olson v. Moorhead Country Club 568 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
“Nonetheless, an amendment to a complaint may properly be denied when the additional alleged claim cannot be maintained.”
Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 561 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 561 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(citing Rehber *282 ger v. Project Plumbing Co., 295 Minn. 577, 578 , )
Hunter v. Hartman 545 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Hunter v. Hartman 545 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
preme Court and other courts have emphasized that one must analyze a statement in its broad context to determine whether it implies the assertion of an objective fact.”); Phantom Touring, 953 F.2d at 729 (“The sum effect of the format, tone and entire content of the articles is to make it unmistakably clear that [the author] was expressing a point of view only.”); (in determining whether opinion is protected, the court must examine *707 “the political, literary, and social context in which the s
Kay v. Fairview Riverside Hospital 531 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kay v. Fairview Riverside Hospital 531 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Glass Service Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 530 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Glass Service Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 530 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
To establish a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations, “a plaintiff must prove the defendant intentionally committed a wrongful act which improperly interfered with the prospective relationship.” (citing United Wild Rice, ).
Geraci v. Eckankar 526 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Geraci v. Eckankar 526 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
*398 (qualifications of public employee is of public interest).
CPJ Enterprises, Inc. v. Gernander 521 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
CPJ Enterprises, Inc. v. Gernander 521 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
v. Caritas Family Servs., (upholding denial of motion to add intentional tort claim when no facts supported that claim); -96 (Minn.App.1991) (same).
Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler 481 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler 481 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Frankson, d at 145 ; -93 (Minn.App.1991) (where no evidence of malice, co-worker’s defamatory reference privileged); Karnes, d at 568-69 (where no evidence of malice, intra-office memo containing defamatory statements covered by qualified privilege).
M.H. v. Caritas Family Services 475 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1991