Plaintiff in Tiffany Flowers V. Peggy Mitchell Cites McKee V. Laurion in Appellate Brief To Minnesota Court of Appeals

Extracted from Appellate Brief, Number A11-1093

State Of Minnesota Court of Appeals

Tiffany Flowers, Plaintiff/Appellant, V. Peggy Mitchell, Defendant/Respondent

. . .

5. Argument: THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY RULED IN FAVOR OF PEGGY BECAUSE PEGGY’S STATEMENTS WERE IN FACT LIBELOUS

Peggy’s statements were libelous and that fact is supported heavily by case law and statutory law The elements for a defamation action are as follows: the defamatory statement was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, the statement was false, the statement tends to harm the plaintiff’s reputation and to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of the community, and the recipient of the false statement reasonably understands it to refer to a specific individual. McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 752 (2013).

In McKee, a doctor attempted to sue the son of a patient for posting “defamatory statements” on a rate your doctor website. The son was found not guilty, as the statements were either true, simply opinion based, or unable to convey a defamatory meaning. In this case, Peggy should have been found liable, because her statements about Tiffany were not true because there is no scientific way to prove that someone is a “slut”. Peggy’s statements were not opinion based, because she was not discussing her actual view of Tiffany. The word “slut” conveys a very strong defamatory meaning because it insinuates that someone has sex with a large amount of different people.

To meet the first element of a defamatory action, Peggy communicated the statement through a national magazine. Next, the statement about Tiffany was false. Then, the statement harmed Tiffany’s reputation in the community, people began to dislike her and she was fired from her job as a result of her reputation being harmed. To meet the final element, Peggy used Tiffany’s full name, making it obviously known that the statement was in regards to her. The case of Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. App. Ct. 2007) states that statements are defamatory per se if they falsely accuse a person of having a repugnant disease, of being a criminal, of being unchaste, or of poor conduct in regards to running their business or performing their work duties.

In Longbehn, the defendant accused the plaintiff of being a pedophile because he was a much older man that was dating a young woman. The defendant did not start the rumor of plaintiff being a pedophile, but he did repeat it throughout the town. Although being accused of pedophilia is much more serious that being accused of being a slut as Peggy called Tiffany, the statement about Tiffany still had a detrimental effect on Tiffany’s reputation around town because they reflected upon her chastity. The court in Longbehn found that although the defendant was not responsible for starting the rumor that the plaintiff was a pedophile, he still repeated the term around town and that action made him liable for defamation per se. Peggy’s statements about Tiffany were not defamatory per se, but they were defamatory because they harmed Tiffany’s reputation and they accused Tiffany of being unchaste. Following the decision in Longbehn, the court should find Peggy liable for defamation.

. . .

Source

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Web Posting

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Patient Complaint

Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply To Patient Complaint

Plaintiff David McKee’s Cease And Desist Letter To Defendant Dennis Laurion

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Complaint To Minnesota Board Of Medical Practice

Plaintiff David McKee’s Complaint To Sixth Judicial District Duluth Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Response To Minnesota Board Of Medical Practice

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Answer To Plaintiff David McKee’s Complaint

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Motion For Summary Judgment

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Deposition Extracts

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Circumstances Before Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Circumstances After Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony In Response To Questions By Marshall Tanick

Affidavits By Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Parents

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Supplemental Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Motion To Oppose Summary Judgment

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Reply Memo In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment

Sixth Judicial District Court’s Order On Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Appeal Of Order On Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Minnesota Court Of Appeals Order To Strike Portion Of Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply Brief

Minnesota Court Of Appeals Announces Decision

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Petition For Review By Minnesota Supreme Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Opposition To Review By Minnesota Supreme Court

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Reply Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Minnesota Supreme Court Decision On David McKee MD V. Dennis K. Laurion

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2010

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2011

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2012

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2013

McKee V Laurion Is A Textbook Case

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s