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.
19 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.green2 sentences2022Put another way, the statement is not considered false unless it “would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.” [Rouch, 440 Mich at 260 , citing Masson, 501 US at 516-517 (citations omitted in original).] We further note that this Court has stated that “there is no logical reason why the substantial truth defense should not apply in cases involving the gist or the sting of defamatory implications from statements that are literally true.” Hawkins, 230 Mich App at 333 . 2022That said, we conclude in the circumstances of this case that the second implication complained of by Reighard, i.e., that there was a connection between Reighard being placed on administrative leave and Nassar or sexual-abuse allegations, would, if proved, “have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.” Masson, -10- 501 US at 517 . | 2 | 3 |
Hawkins v. Mercy Health Services, Incgreen2 sentences2022Put another way, the statement is not considered false unless it “would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.” [Rouch, 440 Mich at 260 , citing Masson, 501 US at 516-517 (citations omitted in original).] We further note that this Court has stated that “there is no logical reason why the substantial truth defense should not apply in cases involving the gist or the sting of defamatory implications from statements that are literally true.” Hawkins, 230 Mich App at 333 . 1999In Hawkins, supra, p 334 , this Court reiterated that the issues of falsity and fault were to be examined independently, so that whether the statement was made negligently or intentionally was independent of the question of material falsity, to which the substantial truth doctrine is applicable. | 1 | 4 |
Northland Wheels Roller Skating Center, Inc v. Detroit Free Press, Incgreen1 sentence2020To determine whether the plaintiff carried the burden of showing material falsity under the substantial truth doctrine, this Court must independently review the entire record. [Northland Wheels Roller Skating Ctr, Inc v Detroit Free Press, Inc, 213 Mich App 317, 325-326 (1995) (quotation marks, citations, and emphasis omitted).] Thus, to determine whether the reports here are both “fair and true,” one must consider the context in which the statements were made and compare those statements to the underlying complaint. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Anonymous Joint Enterprisegreen1 sentence2020See Smith, 487 Mich at 129 (2010) (“[A]llegedly defamatory statements must be analyzed in their proper context.”).3 If the statements substantially represent what is set forth in the complaint, then defendants have provided a “fair and true report” of the official proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Detroit Free Press, Incgreen2 sentences2014Collins v Detroit Free Press, Inc, 245 Mich App 27, 33, 36-37 ; 627 NW2d 5 (2001). 2014Collins v Detroit Free Press, Inc, 245 Mich App 27, 33, 36-37 ; 627 NW2d 5 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Turnergreen1 sentence1973The burden is not upon the defendant who makes the defense of self-defense to satisfy the jury of the truth of his claim.” (Emphasis added.) This Court, in People v Etheridge Turner, 37 Mich App 226, 229 (1971), enumerated thie three elements necessary to make out a successful claim of self-defense, as follows: "In order to make out a case for self-defense three elements must be established: £rst, it must appear that the defendant was not the aggressor; second, it must appear to the defendant that he was in danger of suffering grievous bodily injury; and third, it must also be shown by evidenc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sangstergreen1 sentence1973With respect to the first emphasized portion of the charge set forth above, it should be noted that while the trial court incorrectly stated that defendant must be in immediate danger rather than have a reasonable belief he is in immediate danger, this case does not fall within the rule enunciated in People v Sangster, 33 Mich App 712, 714 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rouch v. Enquirer & News
green
2 sentences2022Put another way, the statement is not considered false unless it “would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.” [Rouch, 440 Mich at 260 , citing Masson, 501 US at 516-517 (citations omitted in original).] We further note that this Court has stated that “there is no logical reason why the substantial truth defense should not apply in cases involving the gist or the sting of defamatory implications from statements that are literally true.” Hawkins, 230 Mich App at 333 . 2020In Rouch, 440 Mich at 260 , the Michigan Supreme Court acknowledged that the substantial truth doctrine is frequently used to address two common reoccurring problems: (1) when publications contain “minor inaccuracies” and (2) when publications contain “technically incorrect or flawed use of legal terminology.” In that case, the Court rejected arguments similar to those made by plaintiff. | 3 | 2020–2022 |
People v. Byrd
green
2 sentences1977In People v Hall, supra, at 290-291, the Supreme Court noted: "The Court of Appeals relied upon Justice Levin’s concurring opinion in People v Byrd, 12 Mich App 186, 229-230 ; 162 NW2d 777 (1968): " '[T]he test should not be whether the defendant establishes the truth of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 1977In People v Hall, supra, at 290-291, the Supreme Court noted: "The Court of Appeals relied upon Justice Levin’s concurring opinion in People v Byrd, 12 Mich App 186, 229-230 ; 162 NW2d 777 (1968): " '[T]he test should not be whether the defendant establishes the truth of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. | 3 | 1970–1977 |
Koniak v. Heritage Newspapers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Under the test, minor differences are immaterial if the literal truth produces the same effect.” Koniak v Heritage Newspapers, Inc (On Remand), 198 Mich App 577, 580 ; 499 NW2d 346 (1993) (internal citation omitted). 2014Under the test, minor differences are immaterial if the literal truth produces the same effect.” Koniak v Heritage Newspapers, Inc (On Remand), 198 Mich App 577, 580 ; 499 NW2d 346 (1993) (internal citation omitted). | 2 | 1995–2014 |
People v. Coughlin
green
2 sentences1940People v. Coughlin , 65 Mich. 704 . 1922People v. Coughlin, 65 Mich. 704 . | 2 | 1922–1940 |
Robert a Hansen Family Trust v. Fgh Industries, LLC
green
2 sentences2024Finally, in her reply brief, Wright asserts that the trial court erred as matter of law because it determined that she was “unable to support her claim, not that she had no reasonable belief in the truth of her defense at the time it was asserted.” Wright cites Robert A Hansen Family Trust v FGH Indus, LLC, 279 Mich App 468, 486 ; 760 NW2d 526 (2008), for the proposition that “[t]he determination whether a claim or defense is frivolous must be based on the circumstances at the time it was asserted.” Wright did not raise this argument, which proposes an alternative basis on which to reverse the 2024Finally, in her reply brief, Wright asserts that the trial court erred as matter of law because it determined that she was “unable to support her claim, not that she had no reasonable belief in the truth of her defense at the time it was asserted.” Wright cites Robert A Hansen Family Trust v FGH Indus, LLC, 279 Mich App 468, 486 ; 760 NW2d 526 (2008), for the proposition that “[t]he determination whether a claim or defense is frivolous must be based on the circumstances at the time it was asserted.” Wright did not raise this argument, which proposes an alternative basis on which to reverse the | 1 | 2024–2024 |
American Transmission, Inc v. Channel 7 of Detroit, Inc
green
2 sentences2001See Hawkins v Mercy Health Services, Inc, 230 Mich App 315, 333-336 ; 583 NW2d 725 (1998); American Transmission, Inc v Channel 7 of Detroit, Inc, 239 Mich App 695, 701-705 ; 609 NW2d 607 (2000). 2001See Hawkins v Mercy Health Services, Inc, 230 Mich App 315, 333-336 ; 583 NW2d 725 (1998); American Transmission, Inc v Channel 7 of Detroit, Inc, 239 Mich App 695, 701-705 ; 609 NW2d 607 (2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Sellers v. Kincaid
neutral
2 sentences1973Sellers v Kincaid, 303 Ill. 216 ; 135 N.E. 429, 433 ; Stofer v Dunham, Mo. App, 208 S.W. 641 , 644.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, according to Bristow , proof of the total exclusion of certain legitimate uses of land establishes a "prima facie case”. 1973Sellers v Kincaid, 303 Ill. 216 ; 135 N.E. 429, 433 ; Stofer v Dunham, Mo. App, 208 S.W. 641 , 644.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, according to Bristow , proof of the total exclusion of certain legitimate uses of land establishes a "prima facie case”. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Townsend v. Burke
green
1 sentence1972Referring to Townsend v Burke, supra, where the United States Supreme Court had "made it clear that a sentence cannot be predicated on false information”, the Court said, p 634: "We extend it but little in holding that a sentence cannot be predicated on information of so little value as that here involved. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Cathey
green
1 sentence1940In People v. Cathey , 220 Mich. 628 , we said: "The burden is not on the defendant who makes the defense of self-defense to satisfy the jury of the truth of his claim. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
People v. Coffman
green
1 sentence1922In People v. Coffman, 59 Mich. 1 , and in People v. Coughlin, supra, a demurrer was filed, and in People v. McArron, 121 Mich. 1 , an answer. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
People v. Coughlin
green
1 sentence1922In People v. Coffman, 59 Mich. 1 , and in People v. Coughlin, supra, a demurrer was filed, and in People v. McArron, 121 Mich. 1 , an answer. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
People v. McArron
green
1 sentence1922In People v. Coffman, 59 Mich. 1 , and in People v. Coughlin, supra, a demurrer was filed, and in People v. McArron, 121 Mich. 1 , an answer. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.