Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
41 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.green2 sentences2004In ascertaining whether the actual malice standard should be applied, consideration has to be given to whether plaintiff is a public official, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. 710, 726 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 686, 706 (1964), a public figure, Curtis Publ'g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 154 , 87 S.Ct. 1975, 1991 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1094, 1111 (1967), or a limited purpose public figure, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351 , 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3013 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 789, 812 (1974). 2004In ascertaining whether the actual malice standard should be applied, consideration has to be given to whether plaintiff is a public official, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. 710, 726 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 686, 706 (1964), a public figure, Curtis Publ'g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 154 , 87 S.Ct. 1975, 1991 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1094, 1111 (1967), or a limited purpose public figure, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351 , 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3013 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 789, 812 (1974). | 4 | 12 |
Sisler v. Gannett Co., Inc.green2 sentences2008Because our courts have applied the actual malice standard where the topic of the report is one of public concern, Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publ'g Co., 104 N.J. 125, 143-44 , 516 A. 2d 220 (1986), or where the report relates to a private person involved in a regulated industry and whose involvement one would "reasonably expect implicates a legitimate public interest with an attendant risk of publicity," Sisler v. Gannett, 104 N.J. 256, 279 , 516 A. 2d 1083 (1986), determining whether the actual malice standard should be applied in a given situation can often prove troublesome. 2008Because our courts have applied the actual malice standard where the topic of the report is one of public concern, Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publ'g Co., 104 N.J. 125, 143-44 , 516 A. 2d 220 (1986), or where the report relates to a private person involved in a regulated industry and whose involvement one would "reasonably expect implicates a legitimate public interest with an attendant risk of publicity," Sisler v. Gannett, 104 N.J. 256, 279 , 516 A. 2d 1083 (1986), determining whether the actual malice standard should be applied in a given situation can often prove troublesome. | 4 | 10 |
Rocci v. Ecole Secondaire MacDonald-cartiergreen2 sentences2026Super. 480 , 492 (App. Div. 2024) ("The actual malice standard applies here because [plaintiff's] conduct arose in the context of her teaching in a public school."); see also Rocci v. Ecole Secondaire Macdonald-Cartier, 165 N.J. 149, 156 (2000). 2024See Rocci v. Ecole Secondaire Macdonald-Cartier, 165 N.J. 149, 160 (2000) (alleged defamatory statements concerning "the welfare of [a child] entrusted to the care of a teacher," held to be "a matter of public concern."). | 3 | 6 |
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Buttsgreen2 sentences2004In ascertaining whether the actual malice standard should be applied, consideration has to be given to whether plaintiff is a public official, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. 710, 726 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 686, 706 (1964), a public figure, Curtis Publ'g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 154 , 87 S.Ct. 1975, 1991 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1094, 1111 (1967), or a limited purpose public figure, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351 , 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3013 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 789, 812 (1974). 2004In ascertaining whether the actual malice standard should be applied, consideration has to be given to whether plaintiff is a public official, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. 710, 726 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 686, 706 (1964), a public figure, Curtis Publ'g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 154 , 87 S.Ct. 1975, 1991 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1094, 1111 (1967), or a limited purpose public figure, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351 , 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3013 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 789, 812 (1974). | 3 | 5 |
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.red2 sentences1997The Supreme Court then held that the actual malice standard applied in situations where the plaintiff is a private figure but the allegedly defamatory statement relates to matters of “public or general interest.” Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 44 , 91 S.Ct. 1811, 1820 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296, 312 (1971). 1997The Supreme Court then held that the actual malice standard applied in situations where the plaintiff is a private figure but the allegedly defamatory statement relates to matters of “public or general interest.” Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 44 , 91 S.Ct. 1811, 1820 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296, 312 (1971). | 3 | 3 |
Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publishing Co.green2 sentences2012Thus, for example, in Dairy Stores, supra , where newspapers reported that the plaintiff sold contaminated spring water, we applied the malice standard, concluding that the reports were a "matter[ ] of legitimate public concern" with respect to which there was a "need for the free flow of information." 104 N.J. at 148 , 516 A. 2d 220 . 2012Thus, for example, in Dairy Stores, supra , where newspapers reported that the plaintiff sold contaminated spring water, we applied the malice standard, concluding that the reports were a "matter[ ] of legitimate public concern" with respect to which there was a "need for the free flow of information." 104 N.J. at 148 , 516 A. 2d 220 . | 2 | 13 |
Turf Lawnmower Repair, Inc. v. Bergen Record Corp.green2 sentences2012We held that the actual malice standard should continue to apply to "businesses that are of such inherent public concern," id. at 412 , 655 A. 2d 417 , and to certain business activities that substantially concern allegations of violation of the state's policy against fraud or consumer fraud, id. at 413 , 655 A. 2d 417 . 2012We held that the actual malice standard should continue to apply to "businesses that are of such inherent public concern," id. at 412 , 655 A. 2d 417 , and to certain business activities that substantially concern allegations of violation of the state's policy against fraud or consumer fraud, id. at 413 , 655 A. 2d 417 . | 2 | 6 |
Senna v. Walter Florimont & 2400 Amusements, Inc.green2 sentences2012See also Senna, supra, 196 N.J. at 488, 958 A.2d 427 (stating same). 2012See also Senna, supra, 196 N.J. at 488, 958 A. 2d 427 (stating same). | 2 | 2 |
In the Matter of Diamondgreen2 sentences2012See also Senna, supra, 196 N.J. at 488, 958 A.2d 427 (stating same). 2012See also Senna, supra, 196 N.J. at 488, 958 A. 2d 427 (stating same). | 2 | 2 |
Garrison v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2011In this context, "reckless disregard" refers to "the publishing of defamatory statements with a `high degree of awareness of their probable falsity.'" Ibid. (quoting Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 , 85 S.Ct. 209, 215 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 125, 133 (1964)). 2011In this context, "reckless disregard" refers to "the publishing of defamatory statements with a `high degree of awareness of their probable falsity.'" Ibid. (quoting Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 , 85 S.Ct. 209, 215 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 125, 133 (1964)). | 2 | 2 |
St. Amant v. Thompsongreen2 sentences1987Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 , 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1325 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 262, 267 (1968). 1987Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 , 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1325 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 262, 267 (1968). | 2 | 2 |
New York Times Co. v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2011We have recently addressed the actual malice standard, stating: In order to meet the actual-malice standard, "a public figure must prove with convincing clarity that the defamatory statements were published by the defendant with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of whether they were true or false." Lawrence v. Bauer Publ'g & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466 [ 446 A. 2d 469 ] (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. at 725-26 , 11 L.Ed. 2d at 706 ), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 999 , 103 S.Ct. 358 , 74 L.Ed. 2d 395 (1982). 2011We have recently addressed the actual malice standard, stating: In order to meet the actual-malice standard, "a public figure must prove with convincing clarity that the defamatory statements were published by the defendant with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of whether they were true or false." Lawrence v. Bauer Publ'g & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466 [ 446 A. 2d 469 ] (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. at 725-26 , 11 L.Ed. 2d at 706 ), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 999 , 103 S.Ct. 358 , 74 L.Ed. 2d 395 (1982). | 1 | 5 |
Costello v. Ocean County Observergreen2 sentences2012See Costello, supra, 136 N.J. at 615 , 643 A.2d 1012 . 2012See Costello, supra, 136 N.J. at 615 , 643 A.2d 1012 . | 1 | 4 |
Lawrence v. Bauer Publishing & Printing Ltd.green2 sentences2011We have recently addressed the actual malice standard, stating: In order to meet the actual-malice standard, "a public figure must prove with convincing clarity that the defamatory statements were published by the defendant with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of whether they were true or false." Lawrence v. Bauer Publ'g & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466 [ 446 A. 2d 469 ] (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. at 725-26 , 11 L.Ed. 2d at 706 ), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 999 , 103 S.Ct. 358 , 74 L.Ed. 2d 395 (1982). 2011We have recently addressed the actual malice standard, stating: In order to meet the actual-malice standard, "a public figure must prove with convincing clarity that the defamatory statements were published by the defendant with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of whether they were true or false." Lawrence v. Bauer Publ'g & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466 [ 446 A. 2d 469 ] (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. at 725-26 , 11 L.Ed. 2d at 706 ), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 999 , 103 S.Ct. 358 , 74 L.Ed. 2d 395 (1982). | 1 | 3 |
Burke v. Deinergreen2 sentences1989Burke, supra, 97 N.J. at 478 (citing Kilgore v. Younger, 30 Cal. 3d 770 , 640 P. 2d 793 , 180 Cal. Rptr. 657 (Sup.Ct. 1982)). 1989Burke, supra, 97 N.J. at 478 (citing Kilgore v. Younger, 30 Cal. 3d 770 , 640 P. 2d 793 , 180 Cal. Rptr. 657 (Sup.Ct. 1982)). | 1 | 3 |
DeAngelis v. Hillgreen2 sentences2025Inst. 1977).] A-0409-23 14 "A false light claim against a public official [is] similar to a defamation claim [in that they both] utilize[] the actual malice standard." DeAngelis v. Hill, 180 N.J. 1, 19 (2004). 2005To be actionable, "the recklessness in publishing material of obviously doubtful veracity must approach the level of publishing a `knowing, calculated falsehood.'" Lynch, supra, 161 N.J. at 165 , 735 A. 2d 1129 (quoting Lawrence v. Bauer Publ'g & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466 , 446 A. 2d 469 (1982)). [ 371 N.J.Super. at 95 , 852 A. 2d 202 .] The actual malice standard may be satisfied upon proof "the publisher fabricates a story, publishes one that is wholly unbelievable, or relies on an informant of dubious veracity, or purposely avoids the truth." Lynch, supra, 161 N.J. at 165 , 735 A. 2d | 1 | 2 |
Verna v. Links at Valleybrookgreen2 sentences2005In Verna, supra, we discussed the actual malice standard which must be applied to a limited purpose public figure: The actual malice standard requires that a plaintiff demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the alleged defamatory statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. 2005To be actionable, "the recklessness in publishing material of obviously doubtful veracity must approach the level of publishing a `knowing, calculated falsehood.'" Lynch, supra, 161 N.J. at 165 , 735 A. 2d 1129 (quoting Lawrence v. Bauer Publ'g & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466 , 446 A. 2d 469 (1982)). [ 371 N.J.Super. at 95 , 852 A. 2d 202 .] The actual malice standard may be satisfied upon proof "the publisher fabricates a story, publishes one that is wholly unbelievable, or relies on an informant of dubious veracity, or purposely avoids the truth." Lynch, supra, 161 N.J. at 165 , 735 A. 2d | 1 | 2 |
LoBiondo v. Schwartzgreen2 sentences2007LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 323 N.J.Super. 391, 409 , 733 A. 2d 516 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 488 , 744 A. 2d 1211 (1999) (holding "the actual malice standard applies not only to those having the actual status of a public official or other public figure but also to those whose actions or interests have so involved them in a matter of public interest that for purposes of speech respecting that matter, they must be regarded as public figures."). 2007LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 323 N.J.Super. 391, 409 , 733 A. 2d 516 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 488 , 744 A. 2d 1211 (1999) (holding "the actual malice standard applies not only to those having the actual status of a public official or other public figure but also to those whose actions or interests have so involved them in a matter of public interest that for purposes of speech respecting that matter, they must be regarded as public figures."). | 1 | 2 |
Leang v. Jersey City Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2025"The elements of a defamation claim in New Jersey are (1) 'the assertion of a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) the unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party; and (3) fault amounting at least to negligence by the publisher.'" Hyman v. Rosenbaum Yeshiva of N. Jersey, 258 N.J. 208 , 236 (2024) (Patterson, J., concurring) (quoting Leang v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ., 198 N.J. 557, 585 (2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Newman v. Delahuntygreen1 sentence2023See Newman v. Delahunty, 293 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Ward v. Zelikovskygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alfred Avins, in No. 79-1747 v. James P. White, in No. 79-1748green | 1 | 1 |
| Time, Inc. v. Firestonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Leonard Davis v. Theodor Schuchatgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Avins v. Whitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Parker v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shames v. Superior Court of San Franciscogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| Sanders v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lynch v. New Jersey Education Ass'n
green
2 sentences2005To be actionable, "the recklessness in publishing material of obviously doubtful veracity must approach the level of publishing a `knowing, calculated falsehood.'" Lynch, supra, 161 N.J. at 165 , 735 A. 2d 1129 (quoting Lawrence v. Bauer Publ'g & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466 , 446 A. 2d 469 (1982)). [ 371 N.J.Super. at 95 , 852 A. 2d 202 .] The actual malice standard may be satisfied upon proof "the publisher fabricates a story, publishes one that is wholly unbelievable, or relies on an informant of dubious veracity, or purposely avoids the truth." Lynch, supra, 161 N.J. at 165 , 735 A. 2d 2005To be actionable, "the recklessness in publishing material of obviously doubtful veracity must approach the level of publishing a `knowing, calculated falsehood.'" Lynch, supra, 161 N.J. at 165 , 735 A. 2d 1129 (quoting Lawrence v. Bauer Publ'g & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466 , 446 A. 2d 469 (1982)). [ 371 N.J.Super. at 95 , 852 A. 2d 202 .] The actual malice standard may be satisfied upon proof "the publisher fabricates a story, publishes one that is wholly unbelievable, or relies on an informant of dubious veracity, or purposely avoids the truth." Lynch, supra, 161 N.J. at 165 , 735 A. 2d | 3 | 2002–2005 |
Wja v. Da
green
2 sentences2025W.J.A., 210 N.J. at 244 . 2013Id. at 246, 43 A.3d 1148 . | 2 | 2013–2025 |
Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp.
green
2 sentences2025Critically, during the October 7, 2022 reconsideration hearing before Judge Zazzali-Hogan, plaintiffs conceded A-1164-22 20 that the actual malice standard applied, stating that the report involved "a matter of public concern." "Defamation imposes liability for publication of false statements that injure the reputation of another." Printing Mart, 116 N.J. at 765 . 2025Critically, during the October 7, 2022 reconsideration hearing before Judge Zazzali-Hogan, plaintiffs conceded A-1164-22 20 that the actual malice standard applied, stating that the report involved "a matter of public concern." "Defamation imposes liability for publication of false statements that injure the reputation of another." Printing Mart, 116 N.J. at 765 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Durando v. Nutley Sun
green
1 sentence2019Ibid. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Inman v. Pallito
green
1 sentence2014The Court also identified the elements of the cause of action of false light, id. at 249, 37 A.3d *40 449 and examined the actual malice standard, id. at 249-52, 87 A.3d 449 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Lawrence Et Al. v. Bauer Publishing & Printing Ltd. Et Al.
green
2 sentences2011We have recently addressed the actual malice standard, stating: In order to meet the actual-malice standard, "a public figure must prove with convincing clarity that the defamatory statements were published by the defendant with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of whether they were true or false." Lawrence v. Bauer Publ'g & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466 [ 446 A. 2d 469 ] (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. at 725-26 , 11 L.Ed. 2d at 706 ), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 999 , 103 S.Ct. 358 , 74 L.Ed. 2d 395 (1982). 2011We have recently addressed the actual malice standard, stating: In order to meet the actual-malice standard, "a public figure must prove with convincing clarity that the defamatory statements were published by the defendant with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of whether they were true or false." Lawrence v. Bauer Publ'g & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466 [ 446 A. 2d 469 ] (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. at 725-26 , 11 L.Ed. 2d at 706 ), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 999 , 103 S.Ct. 358 , 74 L.Ed. 2d 395 (1982). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Federal Trade Commission v. Francis Ford, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011We have recently addressed the actual malice standard, stating: In order to meet the actual-malice standard, "a public figure must prove with convincing clarity that the defamatory statements were published by the defendant with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of whether they were true or false." Lawrence v. Bauer Publ'g & Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 466 [ 446 A. 2d 469 ] (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. at 725-26 , 11 L.Ed. 2d at 706 ), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 999 , 103 S.Ct. 358 , 74 L.Ed. 2d 395 (1982). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Council
green
2 sentences2010We granted both petitions. 200 N.J. 476 , 983 A. 2d 201 (2009). 2010We granted both petitions. 200 N.J. 476 , 983 A.2d 201 (2009). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2010In this case we need not perseverate further over the issue of what standard applies because, as the Appellate Division declared, the record regarding Charity Snack is an inadequate vehicle for such a determination: “We lastly observe that because the matter has not been the subject of discussion in the trial court, it is not presently appropriate to ascertain whether the actual malice standard should apply to this aspect of the claim.” Salzano, supra, 403 N.J.Super. at 426 , 958 A.2d 1023 . 2010In this case we need not perseverate further over the issue of what standard applies because, as the Appellate Division declared, the record regarding Charity Snack is an inadequate vehicle for such a determination: “We lastly observe that because the matter has not been the subject of discussion in the trial court, it is not presently appropriate to ascertain whether the actual malice standard should apply to this aspect of the claim.” Salzano, supra, 403 N.J.Super. at 426 , 958 A.2d 1023 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Rocci v. MacDonald-Cartier green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Leers v. Green
green
2 sentences2008A speaker, however, loses the protection of the privilege if he uses his criticism "for personal imputations not arising out of the subject-matter or not based on fact.” Id. at 254-55 , 131 A.2d 781 (quotation omitted). 13 In Dairy Stores, supra, the broad language we used stating that "the actual malice standard should apply to non-media as well as to media defendants” was tempered by the actual holding, which was limited to a media-related defendant, such as an expert, who assists in the preparation of a public-interest article. 104 N.J. at 153, 516 A.2d 220 . 14 The article was inaccurate. 2008A speaker, however, loses the protection of the privilege if he uses his criticism "for personal imputations not arising out of the subject-matter or not based on fact.” Id. at 254-55 , 131 A.2d 781 (quotation omitted). 13 In Dairy Stores, supra, the broad language we used stating that "the actual malice standard should apply to non-media as well as to media defendants” was tempered by the actual holding, which was limited to a media-related defendant, such as an expert, who assists in the preparation of a public-interest article. 104 N.J. at 153, 516 A.2d 220 . 14 The article was inaccurate. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Romaine v. Kallinger green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Vassallo v. Bell green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Eadie v. Pole green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Kass v. Great Coastal Express, Inc. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Turf Lawnmower Repair, Inc. v. Bergen Record Corp. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Nowicki v. Cooper green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Mick v. American Dental Assn. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Crotty v. Driver Harris Co. neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Mick v. American Dental Association green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Kilgore v. Younger green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Murphy v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Coleman v. Newark Morning Ledger Co. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Pub. Co., Inc. green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Pub. Co. neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc. green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Hutchinson v. Proxmire green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Foster v. Laredo Newspapers, Inc. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Ali v. Daily News Pub. Co., Inc. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Mark v. Seattle Times green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Memphis Publishing Co. v. Nichols green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Seegmiller v. KSL, Inc. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Laredo Newspapers, Inc. v. Foster green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Mills v. Kingsport Times-News green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Taylor v. Wyrick green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Slayton v. Oklahoma green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Havalunch, Inc. v. Mazza green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.