August 2012

Amicus Participation in Tortious Interference Case

United States - Minnesota

After a jury found allegedly defamatory statements to not be false and awarded the plaintiff in a case $60,000 in damages, the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law asserting that the verdict was inconsistent and contrary to a Minnesota law where liability for tortious interference claims could not be based on true statements. The court denied the defendant's motion, and an appeal followed.

FaegreBD drafted an amicus brief for the appeal, holding that claims for tortious interference cannot be based on true statements or on acts that are intertwined with consitutionally protected speech. The appeals court reversed and remanded the original decision.

The Faegre Baker Daniels website uses cookies to make your browsing experience as useful as possible. In order to have the full site experience, keep cookies enabled on your web browser. By browsing our site with cookies enabled, you are agreeing to their use. Review Faegre Baker Daniels' cookies information for more details.