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.
24 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2024 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Lipskygreen2 sentences2024Innovative Block of S. Tex., Ltd. v. Valley Builders Supply, Inc., 603 S.W.3d 409 , 418 (Tex. 2020) (holding when defamation is per se, the communication is actionable in and of itself without actual-damages proof); In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 593 . 2023For Joiner to avoid dismissal of a defamation per se claim, he must show that (1) Conrad publicized a false statement of fact to a third party, (2) the statement was defamatory per se concerning him, and (3) the statement was made with actual malice.7 See Hall, 579 S.W.3d at 377 ; In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 593 . | 4 | 10 |
Joseph E. Hancock v. Easwaran P. Variyamgreen2 sentences2018See Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59, n.7 (Tex. 2013) (“After Gertz and Dun & Bradstreet, there must still be a showing of fault in a defamation per se claim between private parties over a matter of private concern. 2014Instead, Fa-rias argues there is no evidence of malice. 6 *816 Even in a defamation per se claim between private parties over a matter of private concern, “there must still be a showing of fault.” Hancock, 400 S.W.3d at 65 n. 7; WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex.1998) (holding fault “is a constitutional prerequisite for defamation liability”). | 4 | 6 |
Julie Hersh v. John Tatum and Mary Ann Tatumgreen2 sentences2022See Hersh, 526 S.W.3d at 467 (plaintiff’s pleadings generally “the best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action”). 2022See Hersh, 526 S.W.3d at 467 (plaintiff’s pleadings generally “the best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action”). | 2 | 2 |
the Dallas Morning News, Inc. and Kevin Krause v. Lewis Hall and Richard Hall, Individually and on Behalf of Rxpress Pharmacies and Xpress Compoundinggreen2 sentences2023For Joiner to avoid dismissal of a defamation per se claim, he must show that (1) Conrad publicized a false statement of fact to a third party, (2) the statement was defamatory per se concerning him, and (3) the statement was made with actual malice.7 See Hall, 579 S.W.3d at 377 ; In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 593 . 2022See Hall, 579 S.W.3d at 377 ; In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 593 . | 1 | 2 |
Fawcett v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2020Civ. P. 47(a) (requiring plaintiff to plead only “a short statement of the cause of action sufficient to give fair notice of the claim involved”); Fawcett v. Rogers, 492 S.W.3d 18 , 26-27 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (holding private plaintiff’s pleading, by alleging facts consistent with defamation per se, “sufficiently put the Signing Defendants on notice that they could be defending against a defamation per se claim”). 2019See Fawcett v. Rogers, 492 S.W.3d 18, 26 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (applying “fair notice” standard in appeal of trial court’s denial of TCPA motion to dismiss to conclude that petition sufficiently put defendants on notice that plaintiff was asserting a defamation per se claim). | 1 | 2 |
Van Der Linden v. Khangreen2 sentences2023See id. 2023See Van Der Linden v. Khan, 535 S.W.3d 179, 198 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, pet. denied). 7 To prevail on a business disparagement claim, the plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant published disparaging words about the plaintiff’s economic interests; (2) with malice; (3) without privilege; (4) that resulted in special damages. | 1 | 1 |
Rusk State Hospital v. Blackgreen2 sentences2019See Rusk State Hosp., 392 S.W.3d at 95 ; Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 147 . 2019See Rusk State Hosp., 392 S.W.3d at 95 . | 1 | 1 |
Jonathan Levine and Samantha Levine v. Steve Scharn Custom Homes, Inc., Steve Scharn, and NewFirst National Bankgreen1 sentence2016“Defamation per se and defamation per quod are not separate causes of action, however. ‘[T]he distinction between them instead is based on a rule of evidence, the difference between them lying in the proof of the resulting injury.’ ” Levine v. Steve Scharn Custom Homes, Inc., 448 S.W.3d 637, 650 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 2014, pet. denied) (quoting Downing v. Burns, 348 S.W.3d 415, 425 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
Downing v. Burnsgreen1 sentence2016“Defamation per se and defamation per quod are not separate causes of action, however. ‘[T]he distinction between them instead is based on a rule of evidence, the difference between them lying in the proof of the resulting injury.’ ” Levine v. Steve Scharn Custom Homes, Inc., 448 S.W.3d 637, 650 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 2014, pet. denied) (quoting Downing v. Burns, 348 S.W.3d 415, 425 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.)). | 1 | 1 |
WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemoregreen1 sentence2014Instead, Fa-rias argues there is no evidence of malice. 6 *816 Even in a defamation per se claim between private parties over a matter of private concern, “there must still be a showing of fault.” Hancock, 400 S.W.3d at 65 n. 7; WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex.1998) (holding fault “is a constitutional prerequisite for defamation liability”). | 1 | 1 |
Snead v. Redland Aggregates Ltd.green1 sentence2005See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Innovative Block of South Texas, Ltd. v. Valley Builders Supply, Inc. D/B/A Valley Block & Brick
green
2 sentences2024Innovative Block of S. Tex., Ltd. v. Valley Builders Supply, Inc., 603 S.W.3d 409 , 418 (Tex. 2020) (holding when defamation is per se, the communication is actionable in and of itself without actual-damages proof); In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 593 . 2022Innovative Block of S. Tex., Ltd. v. Valley Builders Supply, Inc., 603 S.W.3d 409 , 418 (Tex. 2020) (holding when defamation is per se, the communication is actionable in and of itself without actual- 4 During the hearing on Schupp’s motion to dismiss, Schupp acknowledged that Miller’s petition includes a claim of defamation per se. 7 damages proof); Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 593 . | 2 | 2022–2024 |
Andrew Anderson v. Jerry v. Durant, Jerry v. Durant, Inc. D/B/A Durant Toyota and D/B/A Jerry Durant Toyota, Jerry Durant Hyundai, LLC, Doyle Maynard, and Robert G. Cote, Sr., Gary Michael Deere, Jerry Rash, and Elliot "scooter" Michelson
green
1 sentence2019Anderson, 550 S.W.3d at 618 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kerry Heckman, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Williamson County
green
1 sentence2019See Rusk State Hosp., 392 S.W.3d at 95 ; Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 147 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Moore v. Waldrop
green
1 sentence2015In a defamation per se claim one cannot use inference or innuendo to support such a claim either.39 Another essential element of the defamation claim at issue in the underlying case was the constitutional requirement of showing “actual malice” – a burden that 38 As this Court previously found, Robinson pled only a claim for defamation per se, not per quod. 39 Moore v. Waldrop, 166 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.). 18 arises when the plaintiff is a public figure or when the statements made are privileged. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Dr. Hector Farias and Voices in Democratic Action (VIDA) v. Eduardo A. Garza and Uni-Trade Forwarding, L.C.
green
2 sentences2014Even in a defamation per se claim between private parties over a matter of private concern, “there must still be some showing of fault.” See id.-, Farias, 426 S.W.3d 808 , 2014 WL 300983, at *4 . 2014Even in a defamation per se claim between private parties over a matter of private concern, “there must still be some showing of fault.” See id.-, Farias, 426 S.W.3d 808 , 2014 WL 300983, at *4 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.