|
View Case
|
|
Cited Cases
|
|
Citing Cases
|
|
Comment (0)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOORE v. HOFF
821 N.W.2d 591 (2012)
Jerry L. MOORE, Respondent,
v.
John HOFF a/k/a Johnny Northside, Appellant.
No. A11-1923.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
August 20, 2012.
Jill Clark, Jill Clark, LLC, Golden Valley, MN, for respondent.
Considered and decided by HALBROOKS, Presiding Judge; BJORKMAN, Judge; and MUEHLBERG, Judge.*
OPINIONHALBROOKS, Judge. Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial. Because the jury's verdict is contrary to established law and appellant's alleged tortious acts are too intertwined with constitutionally protected conduct to avoid infringing on appellant's First Amendment rights, we reverse and remand. FACTSAppellant John Hoff writes a blog titled "The Adventures of Johnny Northside." In June 2009, Hoff was informed that respondent Jerry L. Moore was working for the University of Minnesota in the Urban Research and Outreach-Engagement Center (UROC). The UROC consisted of a group of residents from Hoff's and Moore's neighborhood that had been asked to "focus on foreclosures in the neighborhood." On June 21, 2009, Hoff blogged about Moore's new position: [Moore] — who has been a plaintiff in a lawsuit against JACC [Jordan Area Community Council], and was fired from his executive director position for misconduct, (fistfight, cough cough) is nothing if not a controversial figure in the Jordan neighborhood....
... Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows [Moore] was involved with a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.
* Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
1. Moore also sued Allen, but Allen and Moore reached a settlement prior to trial.
2. Moore claims that Hoff only challenged the intentional-interference-with-a-contract claim in district court, and, therefore, Hoff has waived his right to relief from the jury's verdict on the interference-with-a-prospective-advantage claim. Generally, an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). And, similarly, issues not briefed on appeal are waived. Melina v. Chaplin, 327 N.W.2d 19, 20 (Minn. 1982). Although Hoff could have more clearly delineated his arguments with respect to the two separate torts, his motion for JMOL and his brief on appeal consistently refer to the interference "claims" in the plural. Hoff has therefore not waived his right to challenge the jury's verdict on both claims.
3. Moore attempts to challenge his limited-purpose public-figure status on appeal, but Moore did not file a notice of related appeal. The failure to file a notice of related appeal limits the issues before this court to those in the notice of appeal. Nordling v. N. States Power Co., 465 N.W.2d 81, 87 (Minn.App. 1991) (referring to the previously used term "notice of review," which is synonymous with the current term "notice of related appeal"), rev'd on other grounds, 478 N.W.2d 498 (Minn.1991).
|
|
|
|
|