J&D Dental, et al., Respondents, vs. Liya Hou, Appellant
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Whether a civil action is based on speech “on a matter of public concern” and thus within the scope of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 554.07-.20 (2024), is determined, consistent with common-law interpretation of the phrase in the defamation context, on a case-by-case basis given the totality of circumstances, taking into consideration the content, form, and context of the speech, as well as any other pertinent factors. Affirmed.
1Opinion of the Court
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A24-2046 J&D Dental, et al., Respondents, vs. Liya Hou, Appellant. Filed September 15, 2025 Affirmed Frisch, Chief Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-24-10516 Christopher W. Madel, Jennifer M. Robbins, Madel PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents) Bruce Jones, Josephine Pechous, Jessica L. Berns, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Frisch, Chief Judge; and Segal, Judge. ∗ SYLLABUS Whether a civil action is based on speech “on a matter…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Snyder v. PhelpsSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Wong v. JingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Gilbert v. SykesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Carver v. BondsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.