Sharpe v. Larson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the. district court for Norman county, Ives, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Any circumstance which tends to overcome or lessen the presumption of malice should be considered in mitigation of damages. Eviston v. Cramer, 54 Wis. 220; Marks v. Baker, 28 Minn. 162; Newell, Defam. 883. Punitive damages cannot be awarded in an action for libel, unless defendant has been actuated by malice.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the. district court for Norman county, Ives, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Any circumstance which tends to overcome or lessen the presumption of malice should be considered in mitigation of damages. Eviston v. Cramer, 54 Wis. 220; Marks v. Baker, 28 Minn. 162; Newell, Defam. 883. Punitive damages cannot be awarded in an action for libel, unless defendant has been actuated by malice. Eviston v. Cramer, supra; Templeton v. Craves, 59 Wis. 95; See-man v. Feeney, 19 Minn. 54 (79); 2 Sutherland, Dam. § 661.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
Action for libel, in which plaintiff had a verdict for $750. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
The substance of the libelous publication sufficiently appears in an opinion written on a former appeal, at which time it was held *324that the complaint herein contained facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Sharpe v. Larson, 70 Minn. 209, 72 N. W. 961. And the case referred to in the publication was that disposed of by the court on appeal in an earlier action between these same parties; the opinion being found in 67 Minn. 428, 70 N. W. 1, 554. The Ole…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sharpe v. LarsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- Sharpe v. LarsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dodge v. GilmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913