“other courts similarly have held that candidates who seek to be elected to lead organizations become limited public figures for purpose of communications related to the election.”
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Dravo Bay d/b/a Blue Rock Financial Group v. James Whalen
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the first amendment of the united states constitution generally protects expressions of opinion.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
McCoy v. Johnson
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
when individuals seek to serve as directors of an organization, they meet the second rationale for public figure status.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. DC Capital Partners Fund II, L.P.
when interpreting statutory language, delaware courts deploy well- established canons of statutory interpretation.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Maletta v. Woodle
other courts similarly have held that candidates who seek to be elected to lead organizations become limited public figures for purpose of communications related to the election.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montway LLC d/b/a Montway Auto Transport and MDG EOOD d/b/a Montway Bulgaria v. Navi Transport Services LLC d/b/a Navi Auto Transport and Ivan Karakostov and Radion Tzakov
At the pleading stage, all Navi had to do was plausibly allege that CentralDispatch “would regard [Montway’s statements] as [something] other than an expression of [its] opinion.” Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 485 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blue Beach Bungalows DE, LLC v. The Delaware Department of Justice Consumer Protection Unit
C. § 303 ( “Words and phrases shall be read with their context[.]”); In re Fox Corp./Snap Inc., 312 A.3d 636 , 647 n.58 (Del. 2024) (stating words in a statute “must be interpreted in the context of words surrounding them.” (quoting Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 473 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Atlantic Ventures, LLC v. TMTG Sub Inc. f/k/a Trump Media & Technology Group Corp.
“The canon of noscitur a sociis requires the court to interpret words as part of the larger phrase in which they appear.”125 The first sentence of Section 202(b) states that restrictions may be imposed by the certification of incorporation, the bylaws, or “an agreement among 122 Cephas v. State, 911 A.2d 799, 801 (Del. 2006) (citation omitted); see also Freeman v. X-Ray Assocs., P.A., 3 A.3d 224, 227 (Del. 2010) (“Because dictionaries are routine reference sources that reasonable persons use to determine the ordinary meaning of words, we often rely on them for assistance in determining…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
AG Mobile Holdings LP v. H.I.G. Mobile LP
Mar. 19, 2021) (quoting Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 473 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Fox Corporation/Snap Inc. Section 242 Litigation
Ch. 2015)). 56 Defs.’ Opening MSJ at 26 (citing Power, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)). 57 Id. 58 See Osgood v. State, 2023 WL 8532754 , at *4 (Del. 2023) (“[W]ords in a statute should be given meaning through the context in which they are used.”); Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 473 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Fox Corporation/Snap Inc. Section 242 Litigation
Ch. 2015)). 56 Defs.’ Opening MSJ at 26 (citing Power, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)). 57 Id. 58 See Osgood v. State, 2023 WL 8532754 , at *4 (Del. 2023) (“[W]ords in a statute should be given meaning through the context in which they are used.”); Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 473 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paragon Technologies, Inc. v. Terence J. Cryan
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
If a board could call a nomination notice deficient simply because it disagreed with opinions voiced by the nominating stockholder, rejection would be a foregone conclusion.180 Irrespective of any good intentions in ensuring that notices are accurate, the Board’s dismissal of the Notice based on Paragon’s opinion statements appears preclusive in effect. 178 Hewlett Dep. 130 (Q: “It was discussed at the June 5, 2023 board meeting that these individuals may have difficulty obtaining a security clearance, correct?” A: “To the best of my recall.”); see also PX 9 at 3 (June 5 minutes: �…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sees, D.O. v. Mackenzie, M.D.
Finally, even though Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were only willing 56 Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 470 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smartmatic USA Corp. v. Newsmax Media, Inc.
Moreover, Smartmatic argues it is not a limited-purpose public figure because it did not (1) invite public attention, (2) voluntarily inject itself into public controversy related to this litigation, (3) assume a position of prominence in the controversy, or (4) maintain regular or continuing access to the media.178 Under Delaware law and United States Supreme Court precedent, a limited purpose public figure is one who “voluntarily injects [itself] or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.”179 Whether a plaintiff is …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
US Dominion, Inc. v. Fox Corporation
Actual malice must be ‘brought home to the persons . . . having responsibility for the [allegedly defamatory] publication.’”108 In other words, “[w]hen there are multiple actors involved in an organizational defendant’s publication of a defamatory statement, the plaintiff must identify the individual responsible for publication of a statement, and it is that individual the plaintiff must prove acted with actual malice.”109 Still, proof of actual malice “calls a defendant’s state of mind into question and does not readily lend itself to summary disposition.”110 103 Agar v. Jud…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pestell v. CytoDyn Inc.
It is sufficient that the statement is “substantially true.” Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 485 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Page v. Oath Inc.
July 20, 2021); Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 486 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
US Dominion, Inc. v. Fox News Network, LLC
Ch. 2017). 163 Id. at 471 (internal quotation marks omitted). 164 N.Y.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cousins v. Goodier
Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 13 (1970) (accusations of “blackmail” protected under First Amendment). 12 Doe, 884 A.2d at 466 (Del. 2005); Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Trump, 182 F.3d 183, 187 (3d Cir. 1999) (“Although Trump’s statements were undoubtedly offensive and distasteful, the law of defamation does not extend to mere insult.”). 13 McCafferty v. Newsweek Media Group, Ltd., 955 F.3d 352, 358 (3d Cir. 2020) (while specific accusations of race discrimination may be actionable, “a simple accusation of racism” is not). 14 Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, at 481 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Owens v. Lead Stories, LLC
Capital Hldgs, LLC, 27 A.3d 531, 537 (Del. 2011). 98 Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 470 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Campus Book Company, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC
Under Delaware law, “[a]n unincorporated association of persons[] . . . using a common name may sue and be sued in such common name . . . .” Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 488 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tetragon Financial Group Limited v. Ripple Labs Inc.
A “determination that XRP was a security in the past” would not end the controversy, as it would leave open the question of whether XRP is currently a security and whether XRP will be a security “on a . . . going forward basis.” 71 See Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 473 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Page v. Oath, Inc.
I take judicial notice‘ of the fact that on March 21, 2016, six months before the first HuffPost Articles, presidential candidate Donald Trump named Plaintiff as one of five members of his “foreign policy team.”*> Days later, Plaintiff discussed his Russian ties in a two-hour interview with Bloomberg.”° He therefore “inject[ed] himself” °° Agar y, Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 477 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Preston Hollow Capital LLC v. Nuveen LLC
“A communication is defamatory ‘if it tends to so harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.’”121 Nuveen states that discovery is necessary to “elicit evidence on…whether [Preston Hollow’s] already poor reputation in the municipal bond market meant that [Nuveen’s Statements] could not 121 Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 470 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Todd O'Gara and Wanu Water, Inc. v. Sheldon Coleman
Compl. ¶ 180. 74 Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 470 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bradley E. Julius v. Accurus Aerospace Corporation
Having an “issue” necessarily implies that one is aware of the underlying problem. 137 Sellers contend I should apply the canon of interpretation of noscitur a sociis, which requires that words “be interpreted in the context of words surrounding them.” Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 473 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Dunn, M.D. v. FastMed Urgent Care, P.C.
C. § 1720. 109 Id. § 1720(a). 110 Id. § 1702(2) (“‘Certificate to practice medicine’ means the authorization awarded by the Board to a person who has been qualified to practice medicine in this State by meeting the requirements of this chapter.”). 111 Practice, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/practice (last visited August 29, 2019). 112 Id. 113 Medicine, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/medicine (last visited August 29, 2019). 114 Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 475 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paul Nguyen v. View, Inc.
The legislative synopsis is the “most prevalent source of legislative history for a Delaware statute” and has been held by our Supreme Court to be “‘a proper source for ascertaining legislative intent.’” Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 475 (Del.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jack Russell Music Ltd. v. 21st Hapilos Digital Distribution, Inc.
An examination of the content of the communications as a whole, as well as their “tone and . . . apparent purpose,” Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283, 293 (1986); accord Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 481 (Del.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel COHEE, Below-Appellant
v.
STATE of Delaware, Below-Appellee
v.
STATE of Delaware, Below-Appellee
No. 256, 2016.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Nov 14, 2016.
Published
Citer courts: M.D. Florida (1)
Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Cr. ID 1004008353
AFFIRMED.