Legal Opinion
Brooks v. Doherty, Rumble & Butler
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided February 18, 1992No. C2-91-626PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge.
Appellant challenges the jury’s finding of no actual malice and the trial court’s determination that respondents were not liable for defamation because of a qualified privilege. Respondents allege the record was insufficient to prove fraud. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
FACTS
Appellant Richard Brooks is an attorney who specializes in labor law. Since graduating from law school in 1974, appellant has worked for the National Labor Relations Board, clerked for United States District Court, and worked as an associate for law firms in Dallas, Texas and in…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- A. J. Chromy Construction Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Gruenhagen v. LarsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Brian Keenan, an Individual Resident of the State of Minnesota v. Computer Associates International, Inc., a Foreign CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
- Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Thompson v. CampbellDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1994
- In Re Grain Land CoopDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1997
- Elstrom v. Independent School District No. 270Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.