Legal Opinion
Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 20, 1995No. CX-94-2249, C5-94-2501PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
Appellants challenge summary judgments granted separately to respondents Paramount Pictures Corporation (Paramount) and MoPo Productions, Inc. (MoPo) and respondent Kathy Tatone on appellants’ claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy.1 Appellants argue that the district court erred in finding they were required to show actual harm to their reputations to maintain their defamation action and failed to do so. They also contend the district court erroneously determined respondent Tatone was protected by attorney immunity and qualified privilege. We agree…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Time, Inc. v. FirestoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Allstate Insurance v. HagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Chapadeau v. Utica Observer-Dispatch, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1975
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Medical Graphics Corp. v. Hartford Fire InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1997
- Richie v. Paramount Pictures Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995