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.
15 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1991–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sciandra v. Lynettgreen2 sentences2014Defendants argued that the first amendment protects publishers from liability for defamation for unreasonable interpretations of articles’ meanings, claimed unfairness in presentation, opinions, immaterial inaccuracies or truthful articles. 2 Movants also argued 3 that plaintiff Greene could not overcome the fair report privilege, which provides that when “it is in the public interest that information be made available as to what takes place in public affairs, a newspaper has the privilege to report the acts of the executive or administrative officials of government.” Sciandra v. Lvnett, 187 A 2004The fair report privilege was embraced by this Court over forty years ago — indeed, even before the decision in New York Times — in Sciandra v. Lynett, 409 Pa. 595 , 187 A.2d 586 (1963), which held that: [A] newspaper has the privilege to report the acts of the executive or administrative officials of government.... | 8 | 8 |
Williams v. WCAU-TVgreen2 sentences2011“A statement is substantially accurate if its ‘gist’ or ‘sting’ is true, that is, if it produces the same effect on the mind of the recipient which the precise truth would have produced.” Williams v. WCAU-TV, 555 F.Supp. 198, 202 (E.D.Pa.1983). 2004Curran v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 497 Pa. 163 , 439 A.2d 652 (1981) (fair report privilege of Restatement (Second) Torts would have applied to newspaper's report of comments at press conference if report was fair and accurate); DeMary v. Latrobe Printing and Publishing Company, 762 A.2d 758 (Pa.Super.2000) ( en banc ), appeal denied, 567 Pa. 725 , 786 A.2d 988 (2001) (issue involving fair report privilege should go to jury; citing Restatement (First) Torts); Williams v. WCAU-TV, 555 F.Supp. 198 (E.D.Pa.1983) (predicting Pennsylvania will adopt Section 611 of Restatement (Second) Torts f | 4 | 5 |
First Lehigh Bank v. Cowengreen2 sentences2017First Lehigh Bank v. Cowen, 700 A.2d 498, 502 (Pa.Super.1997). 2017First Lehigh Bank, 700 A.2d at 503 . | 4 | 4 |
Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc.green2 sentences2005DeMary, supra; Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 442 Pa. 319 , 275 A.2d 53, 56 (1971). ¶ 6 The Majority also concludes that the fair report privilege was not applicable because the article stated that “Pellegrino has been notified of the infractions and has responded with the statement ‘Prove it!” ’ 3 As it turns out, this was not a direct quote from any Pellegrino official, but was the attitude of that person. 2005DeMary, supra; Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 442 Pa. 319 , 275 A.2d 53, 56 (1971). ¶ 6 The Majority also concludes that the fair report privilege was not applicable because the article stated that “Pellegrino has been notified of the infractions and has responded with the statement ‘Prove it!” ’ 3 As it turns out, this was not a direct quote from any Pellegrino official, but was the attitude of that person. | 2 | 2 |
DeMary v. Latrobe Printing & Publishing Co.green2 sentences2005DeMary v. Latrobe Printing and Publishing Co., 762 A.2d 758, 763 (Pa.Super.2000). ¶ 4 In this case, the fair report privilege was applicable. 2005DeMary, supra; Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 442 Pa. 319 , 275 A.2d 53, 56 (1971). ¶ 6 The Majority also concludes that the fair report privilege was not applicable because the article stated that “Pellegrino has been notified of the infractions and has responded with the statement ‘Prove it!” ’ 3 As it turns out, this was not a direct quote from any Pellegrino official, but was the attitude of that person. | 1 | 3 |
Mosley v. Observer Publishing Co.green2 sentences2000See Mosley, 629 A.2d at 968 . 2000See Sciandra, 187 A.2d at 588 ; Mosley, 629 A.2d at 967 . | 1 | 2 |
Lavin v. New York News, Inc.green2 sentences1993See: Lavin v. New York News, Inc., 757 F.2d 1416 (3rd Cir.1985) (FBI affidavits accompanying application for search warrant); Medico v. Time, Inc., supra (FBI affidavits implicating elected official); Seymour v. A.S. 1991See: Biggans v. Foglietta, 403 Pa. 510, 511 , 170 A.2d 345, 346 (1961); Lavin v. New York News Inc., 757 F.2d 1416, 1419 (3rd Cir.1985); Hanish v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 487 F.Supp. 397, 402 (E.D.Pa.1980); Bargerstock v. Washington Greene Community Action Corp., supra, 397 Pa.Super. at 411 , 580 A.2d at 364 ; Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 619(2). *129 The question of whether the fair report privilege has been abused has been distilled by the federal courts to a “gist” or “sting” test. | 1 | 2 |
Norton v. Glenngreen2 sentences2004As the DeMary Court explains, "Actual malice focuses on the defendant's attitude toward the truth, whereas common law malice focuses on the defendant's attitude towards the plaintiff." Id. at 764 . 797 A.2d at 298-99 (Montemuro, J., concurring) (emphasis supplied) (additional citations omitted). 2004Norton, 797 A.2d at 298-99 (Montemuro, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Purcell v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.green2 sentences2004See e.g., Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 442 Pa. 319 , 275 A.2d 53 (1971) (applying fair report privilege with citation to Restatement (First) Torts); Purcell v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 411 Pa. 167 , 191 A.2d 662, 667 (1963) (analyzing radio station's comments about judicial proceeding under Section 611 fair report privilege); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 37-38 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) ("Pennsylvania law recognizes... a conditional privilege for news media to report judicial, administrative, or legislative proceedings if the account is fair and accurate, 2004See e.g., Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 442 Pa. 319 , 275 A.2d 53 (1971) (applying fair report privilege with citation to Restatement (First) Torts); Purcell v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 411 Pa. 167 , 191 A.2d 662, 667 (1963) (analyzing radio station's comments about judicial proceeding under Section 611 fair report privilege); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 37-38 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) ("Pennsylvania law recognizes... a conditional privilege for news media to report judicial, administrative, or legislative proceedings if the account is fair and accurate, | 1 | 1 |
Curran v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.green2 sentences2004Curran v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 497 Pa. 163 , 439 A.2d 652 (1981) (fair report privilege of Restatement (Second) Torts would have applied to newspaper's report of comments at press conference if report was fair and accurate); DeMary v. Latrobe Printing and Publishing Company, 762 A.2d 758 (Pa.Super.2000) ( en banc ), appeal denied, 567 Pa. 725 , 786 A.2d 988 (2001) (issue involving fair report privilege should go to jury; citing Restatement (First) Torts); Williams v. WCAU-TV, 555 F.Supp. 198 (E.D.Pa.1983) (predicting Pennsylvania will adopt Section 611 of Restatement (Second) Torts f 2004Curran v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 497 Pa. 163 , 439 A.2d 652 (1981) (fair report privilege of Restatement (Second) Torts would have applied to newspaper's report of comments at press conference if report was fair and accurate); DeMary v. Latrobe Printing and Publishing Company, 762 A.2d 758 (Pa.Super.2000) ( en banc ), appeal denied, 567 Pa. 725 , 786 A.2d 988 (2001) (issue involving fair report privilege should go to jury; citing Restatement (First) Torts); Williams v. WCAU-TV, 555 F.Supp. 198 (E.D.Pa.1983) (predicting Pennsylvania will adopt Section 611 of Restatement (Second) Torts f | 1 | 1 |
Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily Newsgreen1 sentence2000See Ertel, 674 A.2d at 1041; Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily News, 757 A.2d 938, 945 (Pa.Super.2000); Merriweather v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 453 Pa.Super. 464 , 684 A.2d 137, 140 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Geyer v. Steinbronngreen2 sentences2000In the context of defamation cases, the type of malice that refers to a defendant’s ill will towards a plaintiff is referred to as “common law malice.” See Geyer v. Steinborn, 351 Pa.Super. 536 , 506 A.2d 901, 915 (1986) (stating that “ ‘common law malice’ refers to the defendant’s attitude towards the plaintiff whereas actual malice as defined in New York Times v. Sullivan refers to the defendant’s attitude towards the truth”); Cantrell v. Forest City Publ’g Co., 419 U.S. 245, 252 , 95 S.Ct. 465 , 42 L.Ed.2d 419 (1974); Pierce v. Capital Cities Communications, 576 F.2d 495, 506 (3rd Cir.1978) 2000In the context of defamation cases, the type of malice that refers to a defendant’s ill will towards a plaintiff is referred to as “common law malice.” See Geyer v. Steinborn, 351 Pa.Super. 536 , 506 A.2d 901, 915 (1986) (stating that “ ‘common law malice’ refers to the defendant’s attitude towards the plaintiff whereas actual malice as defined in New York Times v. Sullivan refers to the defendant’s attitude towards the truth”); Cantrell v. Forest City Publ’g Co., 419 U.S. 245, 252 , 95 S.Ct. 465 , 42 L.Ed.2d 419 (1974); Pierce v. Capital Cities Communications, 576 F.2d 495, 506 (3rd Cir.1978) | 1 | 1 |
Ellenbogen v. PNC Bank, N.A.green1 sentence2000Bank, N.A, 731 A.2d 175, 181 (Pa.Super.1999). ¶ 6 In this case, the Bulletin invoked the fair report privilege in its preliminary objections. | 1 | 1 |
Alfred R. Pierce v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Richard Kellmangreen1 sentence2000In the context of defamation cases, the type of malice that refers to a defendant’s ill will towards a plaintiff is referred to as “common law malice.” See Geyer v. Steinborn, 351 Pa.Super. 536 , 506 A.2d 901, 915 (1986) (stating that “ ‘common law malice’ refers to the defendant’s attitude towards the plaintiff whereas actual malice as defined in New York Times v. Sullivan refers to the defendant’s attitude towards the truth”); Cantrell v. Forest City Publ’g Co., 419 U.S. 245, 252 , 95 S.Ct. 465 , 42 L.Ed.2d 419 (1974); Pierce v. Capital Cities Communications, 576 F.2d 495, 506 (3rd Cir.1978) | 1 | 1 |
Merriweather v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.green2 sentences2000See Ertel, 674 A.2d at 1041; Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily News, 757 A.2d 938, 945 (Pa.Super.2000); Merriweather v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 453 Pa.Super. 464 , 684 A.2d 137, 140 (1996). 2000See Ertel, 674 A.2d at 1041; Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily News, 757 A.2d 938, 945 (Pa.Super.2000); Merriweather v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 453 Pa.Super. 464 , 684 A.2d 137, 140 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Schiavone Construction Co. And Ronald A. Schiavone, Individually, in 86-5839 v. Time, Inc., in 86-5920green1 sentence1997Mosley, supra, at 479 , 629 A.2d at 969 ; Schiavone Construction Co. v. Time, Inc., 847 F.2d 1069, 1085 (3rd Cir.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Hanish v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.green2 sentences1991See: Biggans v. Foglietta, 403 Pa. 510, 511 , 170 A.2d 345, 346 (1961); Lavin v. New York News Inc., 757 F.2d 1416, 1419 (3rd Cir.1985); Hanish v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 487 F.Supp. 397, 402 (E.D.Pa.1980); Bargerstock v. Washington Greene Community Action Corp., supra, 397 Pa.Super. at 411 , 580 A.2d at 364 ; Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 619(2). *129 The question of whether the fair report privilege has been abused has been distilled by the federal courts to a “gist” or “sting” test. 1991Cf. Medico v. Time, Inc., supra, 643 F.2d at 140 n. 21; Hanish v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 487 F.Supp. 397, 401-402 (E.D.Pa. 1980). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
| Biggans v. Fogliettagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oweida v. Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences2011In Oweida v. Tribune-Review Pub.Co., 599 A.2d 230 (Pa. Super. 1991), the Supreme Court provided the standard for determining whether the “fair report privilege” has been forfeited by holding: The question of whether the fair report privilege has been abused has been distilled by the federal courts to a “gist” or “sting” test. 1997Co., 410 Pa.Super. 112 , 599 A.2d 230 (1991), appeal denied, 529 Pa. 670 , 605 A.2d 334 (1992), the court addressed the applicability of the fair report privilege to an article written from a civil complaint. | 3 | 1993–2011 |
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2000However, the Bulletin argues that because the fair report privilege may be lost upon a showing of common law malice rather than actual malice, the privilege is constitutionally infirm in fight of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) (holding that the First Amendment requires a showing of actual malice for a public figure to recover damages in a defamation action). 2000However, the Bulletin argues that because the fair report privilege may be lost upon a showing of common law malice rather than actual malice, the privilege is constitutionally infirm in fight of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) (holding that the First Amendment requires a showing of actual malice for a public figure to recover damages in a defamation action). | 2 | 2000–2005 |
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
green
2 sentences2005Tucker, 848 A.2d at 128-130, citing, inter alia, New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 , 87 S.Ct. 1975 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967). 2005Tucker, 848 A.2d at 128-130, citing, inter alia, New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 , 87 S.Ct. 1975 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Norton v. Glenn
green
2 sentences2005Furthermore, the fair report doctrine “is a common law privilege protecting media entities which publish fair and accurate reports of governmental proceedings.” Id., Id., 580 Pa. at 220 n. 6, 860 A.2d at 53 n. 6 (emphasis added). 2005Furthermore, the fair report doctrine “is a common law privilege protecting media entities which publish fair and accurate reports of governmental proceedings.” Id., Id., 580 Pa. at 220 n. 6, 860 A.2d at 53 n. 6 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Maier v. Maretti
green
1 sentence2005In an action for defamation, a “plaintiff must prove: (1) the defamatory character of the communication; (2) publication by the defendant; (3) its application to the plaintiff; (4) understanding by the recipient of its defamatory meaning; (5) understanding by the recipient of it as intended to be applied to plaintiff; (6) special harm to the plaintiff; and (7) abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion.” Maier, 671 A.2d at 704 . ¶ 9 In Pennsylvania, the fair report privilege protects the press from liability for the publication of defamatory material if the published material constitutes a f | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily News
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 123 n. 6. 5 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.
red
2 sentences2004See e.g., Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 442 Pa. 319 , 275 A.2d 53 (1971) (applying fair report privilege with citation to Restatement (First) Torts); Purcell v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 411 Pa. 167 , 191 A.2d 662, 667 (1963) (analyzing radio station's comments about judicial proceeding under Section 611 fair report privilege); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 37-38 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) ("Pennsylvania law recognizes... a conditional privilege for news media to report judicial, administrative, or legislative proceedings if the account is fair and accurate, 2004See e.g., Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 442 Pa. 319 , 275 A.2d 53 (1971) (applying fair report privilege with citation to Restatement (First) Torts); Purcell v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 411 Pa. 167 , 191 A.2d 662, 667 (1963) (analyzing radio station's comments about judicial proceeding under Section 611 fair report privilege); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 37-38 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) ("Pennsylvania law recognizes... a conditional privilege for news media to report judicial, administrative, or legislative proceedings if the account is fair and accurate, | 1 | 2004–2004 |
MacElree v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002MacElree Did Not Implicitly Overrule The 1992 Superior Court Opinion Next, plaintiff maintains that MacElree v. Philadelphia Newspapers Inc., 544 Pa. 117 , 674 A.2d 1050 (1996), effectively revived his claim that the article may reasonably be read to imply that the indictment accused him of wrongdoing and, thereby, implicitly overruled the 1992 Superior Court opinion. 2002MacElree Did Not Implicitly Overrule The 1992 Superior Court Opinion Next, plaintiff maintains that MacElree v. Philadelphia Newspapers Inc., 544 Pa. 117 , 674 A.2d 1050 (1996), effectively revived his claim that the article may reasonably be read to imply that the indictment accused him of wrongdoing and, thereby, implicitly overruled the 1992 Superior Court opinion. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
DiSalle v. P.G. Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences2002Publishing Co., 375 Pa.Super. 510 , 544 A.2d 1345 (1988), appeal denied, 521 Pa. 620 , 557 A.2d 724 (1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 906 , 109 S.Ct. 3216 , 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989), the trial court regarded the neutral report privilege as an extension of the fair report privilege when applied to a particular set of facts. 2002Publishing Co., 375 Pa.Super. 510 , 544 A.2d 1345 (1988), appeal denied, 521 Pa. 620 , 557 A.2d 724 (1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 906 , 109 S.Ct. 3216 , 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989), the trial court regarded the neutral report privilege as an extension of the fair report privilege when applied to a particular set of facts. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Montgomery v. Auriemma
green
2 sentences2002Publishing Co., 375 Pa.Super. 510 , 544 A.2d 1345 (1988), appeal denied, 521 Pa. 620 , 557 A.2d 724 (1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 906 , 109 S.Ct. 3216 , 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989), the trial court regarded the neutral report privilege as an extension of the fair report privilege when applied to a particular set of facts. 2002Publishing Co., 375 Pa.Super. 510 , 544 A.2d 1345 (1988), appeal denied, 521 Pa. 620 , 557 A.2d 724 (1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 906 , 109 S.Ct. 3216 , 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989), the trial court regarded the neutral report privilege as an extension of the fair report privilege when applied to a particular set of facts. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Kanne v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
green
2 sentences2002Publishing Co., 375 Pa.Super. 510 , 544 A.2d 1345 (1988), appeal denied, 521 Pa. 620 , 557 A.2d 724 (1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 906 , 109 S.Ct. 3216 , 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989), the trial court regarded the neutral report privilege as an extension of the fair report privilege when applied to a particular set of facts. 2002Publishing Co., 375 Pa.Super. 510 , 544 A.2d 1345 (1988), appeal denied, 521 Pa. 620 , 557 A.2d 724 (1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 906 , 109 S.Ct. 3216 , 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989), the trial court regarded the neutral report privilege as an extension of the fair report privilege when applied to a particular set of facts. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Henderson v. L. G. Balfour Co.
green
2 sentences2002Publishing Co., 375 Pa.Super. 510 , 544 A.2d 1345 (1988), appeal denied, 521 Pa. 620 , 557 A.2d 724 (1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 906 , 109 S.Ct. 3216 , 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989), the trial court regarded the neutral report privilege as an extension of the fair report privilege when applied to a particular set of facts. 2002Publishing Co., 375 Pa.Super. 510 , 544 A.2d 1345 (1988), appeal denied, 521 Pa. 620 , 557 A.2d 724 (1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 906 , 109 S.Ct. 3216 , 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989), the trial court regarded the neutral report privilege as an extension of the fair report privilege when applied to a particular set of facts. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences2000In the context of defamation cases, the type of malice that refers to a defendant’s ill will towards a plaintiff is referred to as “common law malice.” See Geyer v. Steinborn, 351 Pa.Super. 536 , 506 A.2d 901, 915 (1986) (stating that “ ‘common law malice’ refers to the defendant’s attitude towards the plaintiff whereas actual malice as defined in New York Times v. Sullivan refers to the defendant’s attitude towards the truth”); Cantrell v. Forest City Publ’g Co., 419 U.S. 245, 252 , 95 S.Ct. 465 , 42 L.Ed.2d 419 (1974); Pierce v. Capital Cities Communications, 576 F.2d 495, 506 (3rd Cir.1978) 2000In the context of defamation cases, the type of malice that refers to a defendant’s ill will towards a plaintiff is referred to as “common law malice.” See Geyer v. Steinborn, 351 Pa.Super. 536 , 506 A.2d 901, 915 (1986) (stating that “ ‘common law malice’ refers to the defendant’s attitude towards the plaintiff whereas actual malice as defined in New York Times v. Sullivan refers to the defendant’s attitude towards the truth”); Cantrell v. Forest City Publ’g Co., 419 U.S. 245, 252 , 95 S.Ct. 465 , 42 L.Ed.2d 419 (1974); Pierce v. Capital Cities Communications, 576 F.2d 495, 506 (3rd Cir.1978) | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Bargerstock v. Washington Greene Community Action Corp. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Medico, Philip T. v. Time, Inc green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.