green
Positive treatment
2.6 score
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Jacobson v. Schwarzenegger
See Okun v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.3d 442, 458 , 175 Cal.Rptr. 157 , 629 P.2d 1369 (1981) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1099 , 102 S.Ct. 673 , 70 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981); Kahn v. Bower, 232 Cal.App.3d 1599 , 1612 n. 5, 284 Cal.Rptr. 244, 252 (1991); Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc., 983 F.Supp. 1303, 1314 (N.D.Cal.1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ilse Koch v. Ruth Yannatta Goldway, Individually, and in Her Capacity as Mayor of the City of Santa Monica
See Okun v. Superior *509 Court of Los Angeles, 29 Cal.3d 442, 451 , 175 Cal.Rptr. 157, 162 , 629 P.2d 1369, 1374 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1099 , 102 S.Ct. 673 , 70 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981); Gregory, 131 Cal. Rptr. at 643 , 552 P.2d at 427 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Botos v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn.
However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges or juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789, 805 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted. . . .) In this context courts apply the Constitution by carefully distinguishing between statements of opinion and fact, treating the one as constitutionally protected and imposing on the other civil liability for its abuse, [f] The critical determination of whether the alleged defamatory statement constitutes fact or opinion is a qu…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Essex Cement Co. v. Italmare, S.P.A.
See, e.g., Storer Broadcasting Co. v. American Fed’n of Television & Radio Artists, 600 F.2d 45 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1099 , 102 S.Ct. 673 , 70 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981); Swift Indus., Inc. v. Botany Indus., Inc., 466 F.2d 1125, 1131 (3d Cir.1972); Amoco Overseas Oil Co. v. Astir Navigation Co., 490 F.Supp. 32, 37 (S.D.N.Y.1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Church of Scientology of California v. Michael J. Flynn
See id.; see also Okun v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.3d 442, 450 , 629 P.2d 1369, 1373 , 175 Cal.Rptr. 157, 161 (“[A] writing’s susceptibility to innocent meaning does not in itself preclude a finding that an ordinary reader would understand it in a libelous sense.”), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1099 , 102 S.Ct. 673 , 70 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James McHugh Construction Co.
v.
Comptroller of the Treasury, Retail Sales Tax Division, for the State of Maryland
v.
Comptroller of the Treasury, Retail Sales Tax Division, for the State of Maryland
No. 81-713.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 7, 1981.
Published
Ct. App. Md. Cer-tiorari denied.