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.
13 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2023 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Byron D. Neely, Individually, and Byron D. Neely, M.D., P.A. v. Nanci Wilson, CBS Stations Group of Texas, L.P., D/B/A Keye-Tv and Viacom, Inc.green2 sentences2022“We have said that ‘if a comment is based upon a substantially false statement of fact the defendant asserts or conveys as true, the comment is not protected by the fair comment privilege.’” Id. (quoting Neely, 418 S.W.3d at 70 ). 2. 2020Code § 73.002(a), (b)(2)). “’[I]f a comment is based upon a substantially false statement of fact the defendant asserts or conveys as true, the comment is not protected by the fair comment privilege.’” Id. (quoting Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52, 70 (Tex. 2013)). | 3 | 7 |
D Magazine Partners, L.P. v. Rosenthalgreen2 sentences2022Fair Comment Privilege The Texas Supreme Court has defined the fair comment privilege as “an affirmative defense to a defamation action extending to publications that are ‘reasonable and fair comment[s] on or criticism[s] of ... matter[s] of public concern published for general information.’” Rosenthal, 529 S.W.3d at 441 (quoting TEX. 2021See Fawcett v. Grosu, 498 S.W.3d 650, 663 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g). 11 Fair comment privilege “The fair comment privilege is an affirmative defense to a defamation action extending to publications that are ‘reasonable and fair comment[s] on or criticism[s] of . . . matter[s] of public concern published for general information.’” Rosenthal, 529 S.W.3d at 434 (quoting Tex. Civ. | 3 | 3 |
Matthew Lippincott and Creg Parks v. Warren Whisenhuntgreen1 sentence2023See Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Tex. 2015) (citing Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52 , 70 nn.12 & 26 (Tex. 2013)); see also TEX. | 1 | 1 |
Richard Fawcett, Kevin Roberts, Darrin Pitts, George Lillard, Christopher Matthews, Armando Florido, David Vokovic, Ken Kirkpatrick, James Lemons, Douglas Hissong and Danny Fuller, Sr. v. Bogdan Grosugreen1 sentence2021See Fawcett v. Grosu, 498 S.W.3d 650, 663 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g). 11 Fair comment privilege “The fair comment privilege is an affirmative defense to a defamation action extending to publications that are ‘reasonable and fair comment[s] on or criticism[s] of . . . matter[s] of public concern published for general information.’” Rosenthal, 529 S.W.3d at 434 (quoting Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Swate v. Schiffersgreen1 sentence2015See Brewer v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 986 S.W.2d 636, 644-45 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (fair comment privilege applied to primarily factual account of state agency inspections); Swate v. Schiffers, 975 S.W.2d 70, 77 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) (Broadcasts concerning complaints made to the medical board constituted privileged reports of an official proceeding about medical care, which constitutes a matter of public concern). | 1 | 1 |
Brewer v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.green2 sentences2015See Brewer v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 986 S.W.2d 636, 644-45 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (fair comment privilege applied to primarily factual account of state agency inspections); Swate v. Schiffers, 975 S.W.2d 70, 77 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) (Broadcasts concerning complaints made to the medical board constituted privileged reports of an official proceeding about medical care, which constitutes a matter of public concern). 2015See, Exhibit BB; Brewer v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 986 S.W.2d 636, 644-45 (Tex. App. - Ft. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bell Pub. Co. v. Garrett Engineering Co.
green
2 sentences2015We long ago stated that it “is the settled law of Texas, that a false statement of fact concerning a public officer, even if made in a discussion of matters of public concern, is not privileged as fair comment.” Id. (quoting Bell Publ’g Co. v. Garrett Eng’g Co., 141 Tex. 51 , 170 S.W.2d 197 , 204 (1943)). 2015Id. | 4 | 2013–2015 |
Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015The Legislature has extended the fair comment privilege to matters of public concern,26 TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE § 73.002(b)(2), and we have come to interpret the truth defense as requiring only substantial truth, Turner, 38 S.W.3d at 115 . 2013Prac. & Rem.Code § 73.002(b)(2), and we have come to interpret the truth defense as requiring only substantial truth, Turner, 38 S.W.3d at 115 . | 2 | 2013–2015 |
Denton Publishing Company v. Boyd
green
1 sentence2015Boyd, 460 S.W.2d at 883 . [*70] F. Fair Comment Privilege KEYE also maintains that the fair comment privilege applies to the broadcast. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bell Publshing Co. v. Garrett Engineering Co.
green
1 sentence2015We long ago stated that it “is the settled law of Texas, that a false statement of fact concerning a public officer, even if made in a discussion of matters of public concern, is not privileged as fair comment.” Id. (quoting Bell Publ’g Co. v. Garrett Eng’g Co., 141 Tex. 51 , 170 S.W.2d 197 , 204 (1943)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences1987Those applicable here are: 1. an absolute privilege to publish opinion (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974)); 2. a constitutionally mandated qualified privilege (New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)); 3. a common law qualified privilege, also known as the fair comment doctrine 2 ; 4. and a statutory qualified privilege available to publishers of newspapers and periodicals (Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 73.002 (Vernon 1986)). 1987Those applicable here are: 1. an absolute privilege to publish opinion (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974)); 2. a constitutionally mandated qualified privilege (New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)); 3. a common law qualified privilege, also known as the fair comment doctrine 2 ; 4. and a statutory qualified privilege available to publishers of newspapers and periodicals (Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 73.002 (Vernon 1986)). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
green
2 sentences1987Those applicable here are: 1. an absolute privilege to publish opinion (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974)); 2. a constitutionally mandated qualified privilege (New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)); 3. a common law qualified privilege, also known as the fair comment doctrine 2 ; 4. and a statutory qualified privilege available to publishers of newspapers and periodicals (Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 73.002 (Vernon 1986)). 1987Those applicable here are: 1. an absolute privilege to publish opinion (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974)); 2. a constitutionally mandated qualified privilege (New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)); 3. a common law qualified privilege, also known as the fair comment doctrine 2 ; 4. and a statutory qualified privilege available to publishers of newspapers and periodicals (Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 73.002 (Vernon 1986)). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.