Legal Opinion
Freeman v. Swift
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided December 29, 2009No. A09-598PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STONEBURNER, Judge.
Appellant moved to dismiss respondents’ defamation action, alleging that the challenged communications are immune from liability under Minn.Stat. § 554.03 (2008). The district court, after reviewing the content of the communications, denied the motion, holding that, because the communications were not directed to “the appropriate government bodies” and were “intentionally aimed at audiences having no connection with the public project and controversy,” they were not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action and not entitled to immunity. On appeal,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- Schelling v. LindellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2008
- Plante v. WylieMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2005
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nexus v. SwiftCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District v. StengrimSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- Unity Healthcare, Inc. v. County of HennepinDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2015