12 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Virginia v. Blackgreen2 sentences2023See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 , 123 S. Ct. 1536, 1548 (2003) (true threats First Amendment exception (citing Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 , 89 S. Ct. 1399 (1969)); Rowan, 397 U.S. 728 , 90 S. Ct. 1484 ; Lamoureux, ¶¶ 20-23. 2023See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 , 123 S. Ct. 1536, 1548 (2003) (true threats First Amendment exception (citing Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 , 89 S. Ct. 1399 (1969)); Rowan, 397 U.S. 728 , 90 S. Ct. 1484 ; Lamoureux, ¶¶ 20-23. | 2 | 2 |
Maktab Tarighe Oveyssi Shah Maghsoudi, Inc. v. Kianfargreen2 sentences2014Maktab, 179 F.3d at 1249 [citation omitted]. 2005Maktab, 179 F.3d at 1249 (citing Maryland and Virginia Eldership). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Greengreen2 sentences2025Regarding an attorney charged with violating Rule 8.4(d) (but not Rule 8.2(a)), the Colorado Supreme Court reasoned “disciplining an attorney for criticizing a judge is analogous to a defamation action by a public official for the purpose of this First Amendment analysis.” Green, 11 P.3d at 1082, 1084 . 2025Regarding an attorney charged with violating Rule 8.4(d) (but not Rule 8.2(a)), the Colorado Supreme Court reasoned “disciplining an attorney for criticizing a judge is analogous to a defamation action by a public official for the purpose of this First Amendment analysis.” Green, 11 P.3d at 1082, 1084 . | 1 | 1 |
Watts v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2023See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 , 123 S. Ct. 1536, 1548 (2003) (true threats First Amendment exception (citing Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 , 89 S. Ct. 1399 (1969)); Rowan, 397 U.S. 728 , 90 S. Ct. 1484 ; Lamoureux, ¶¶ 20-23. 2023See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 , 123 S. Ct. 1536, 1548 (2003) (true threats First Amendment exception (citing Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 , 89 S. Ct. 1399 (1969)); Rowan, 397 U.S. 728 , 90 S. Ct. 1484 ; Lamoureux, ¶¶ 20-23. | 1 | 1 |
Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbesgreen2 sentences2007Television Com’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 , 118 S.Ct. 1633 (1998)-a case in which the United States Supreme Court analyzed a First Amendment claim in a factual context quite similar to the case at hand-they argued that the defendants could not “show a compelling state interest in prohibiting two of 4 gubernatorial candidates from participating in the Sept. 21 date [sic] at Montana Tech.” (They incorporated this same argument into subsequent filings and added references to the October 2004 debates at MSU and UM. 1 ) ¶62 Fully recognizing the substance of Kelleher and Jones’s claims, the Universi 2007Television Com’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 , 118 S.Ct. 1633 (1998)-a case in which the United States Supreme Court analyzed a First Amendment claim in a factual context quite similar to the case at hand-they argued that the defendants could not “show a compelling state interest in prohibiting two of 4 gubernatorial candidates from participating in the Sept. 21 date [sic] at Montana Tech.” (They incorporated this same argument into subsequent filings and added references to the October 2004 debates at MSU and UM. 1 ) ¶62 Fully recognizing the substance of Kelleher and Jones’s claims, the Universi | 1 | 1 |
United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1099 v. City Of Sidneygreen2 sentences2007Forbes, 523 U.S. at 677 , 118 S.Ct. at 1641 ; Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 813 , 105 S.Ct. 3439, 3455 (1985) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (observing that the Court’s cases had adopted the term “limited public forum” to refer to a public forum created by government designation); see also United Food & Commercial v. City of Sidney, 364 F.3d 738 , 750 & n.3 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting “the confusion” and “ ‘analytical ambiguity’ ” that has developed surrounding the use of the terms “designated public forum” and “limited public forum”). ¶80 “Traditional public fora 2007Forbes, 523 U.S. at 677 , 118 S.Ct. at 1641 ; Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 813 , 105 S.Ct. 3439, 3455 (1985) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (observing that the Court’s cases had adopted the term “limited public forum” to refer to a public forum created by government designation); see also United Food & Commercial v. City of Sidney, 364 F.3d 738 , 750 & n.3 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting “the confusion” and “ ‘analytical ambiguity’ ” that has developed surrounding the use of the terms “designated public forum” and “limited public forum”). ¶80 “Traditional public fora | 1 | 1 |
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.green2 sentences2007Forbes, 523 U.S. at 677 , 118 S.Ct. at 1641 ; Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 813 , 105 S.Ct. 3439, 3455 (1985) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (observing that the Court’s cases had adopted the term “limited public forum” to refer to a public forum created by government designation); see also United Food & Commercial v. City of Sidney, 364 F.3d 738 , 750 & n.3 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting “the confusion” and “ ‘analytical ambiguity’ ” that has developed surrounding the use of the terms “designated public forum” and “limited public forum”). ¶80 “Traditional public fora 2007Forbes, 523 U.S. at 677 , 118 S.Ct. at 1641 ; Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 813 , 105 S.Ct. 3439, 3455 (1985) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (observing that the Court’s cases had adopted the term “limited public forum” to refer to a public forum created by government designation); see also United Food & Commercial v. City of Sidney, 364 F.3d 738 , 750 & n.3 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting “the confusion” and “ ‘analytical ambiguity’ ” that has developed surrounding the use of the terms “designated public forum” and “limited public forum”). ¶80 “Traditional public fora | 1 | 1 |
Bush v. Lucasgreen2 sentences2002See Bush v. Lucas (1983), 462 U.S. 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (Court declined to create a Bivens remedy for First Amendment violation); Chappell v. Wallace (1983), 462 U.S. 296 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (Court declined to allow enlisted military personnel a Bivens-type remedy against their superior officers); United States v. Stanley (1987), 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (no Bivens remedy available for injuries that arise out of military activity “incident to service”); Schweiker v. Chilicky (1988), 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (Court decl 2002See Bush v. Lucas (1983), 462 U.S. 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (Court declined to create a Bivens remedy for First Amendment violation); Chappell v. Wallace (1983), 462 U.S. 296 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (Court declined to allow enlisted military personnel a Bivens-type remedy against their superior officers); United States v. Stanley (1987), 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (no Bivens remedy available for injuries that arise out of military activity “incident to service”); Schweiker v. Chilicky (1988), 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (Court decl | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. M. George
green
2 sentences2025“When reviewing unpreserved claims of error, we employ the plain error doctrine sparingly, on a case-by-case-basis, considering the totality of circumstances of each case.” State v. George, 2020 MT 56, ¶ 5 , 399 Mont. 173 , 459 P.3d 854 (citation omitted, internal quotations omitted). 2025“When reviewing unpreserved claims of error, we employ the plain error doctrine sparingly, on a case-by-case-basis, considering the totality of circumstances of each case.” State v. George, 2020 MT 56, ¶ 5 , 399 Mont. 173 , 459 P.3d 854 (citation omitted, internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Montana Automobile Ass'n v. Greely
green
2 sentences2024Greely, 193 Mont. at 384 , 632 P.2d at 303 . 2024Greely, 193 Mont. at 384 , 632 P.2d at 303 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rowan v. United States Post Office Department
green
2 sentences2023See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 , 123 S. Ct. 1536, 1548 (2003) (true threats First Amendment exception (citing Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 , 89 S. Ct. 1399 (1969)); Rowan, 397 U.S. 728 , 90 S. Ct. 1484 ; Lamoureux, ¶¶ 20-23. 2023See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 , 123 S. Ct. 1536, 1548 (2003) (true threats First Amendment exception (citing Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 , 89 S. Ct. 1399 (1969)); Rowan, 397 U.S. 728 , 90 S. Ct. 1484 ; Lamoureux, ¶¶ 20-23. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Hagen
green
2 sentences2021See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 363 (2003) (the “First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate” a person or group of persons); United States v. Waggy, 936 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019) (upholding as constitutional a statute that prohibited making telephone calls with the intent to harass, intimidate, or torment another; although the statute at issue contained a speech component, the defendant was convicted for his specific conduct); United States v. Lampley, 573 F.2d 783 (3d Cir. 1978) (upholding a conviction under a federal telephone harassment 2021See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 363 (2003) (the “First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate” a person or group of persons); United States v. Waggy, 936 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019) (upholding as constitutional a statute that prohibited making telephone calls with the intent to harass, intimidate, or torment another; although the statute at issue contained a speech component, the defendant was convicted for his specific conduct); United States v. Lampley, 573 F.2d 783 (3d Cir. 1978) (upholding a conviction under a federal telephone harassment | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. Franklin D. Lampley
green
2 sentences2021See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 363 (2003) (the “First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate” a person or group of persons); United States v. Waggy, 936 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019) (upholding as constitutional a statute that prohibited making telephone calls with the intent to harass, intimidate, or torment another; although the statute at issue contained a speech component, the defendant was convicted for his specific conduct); United States v. Lampley, 573 F.2d 783 (3d Cir. 1978) (upholding a conviction under a federal telephone harassment 2021See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 363 (2003) (the “First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate” a person or group of persons); United States v. Waggy, 936 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019) (upholding as constitutional a statute that prohibited making telephone calls with the intent to harass, intimidate, or torment another; although the statute at issue contained a speech component, the defendant was convicted for his specific conduct); United States v. Lampley, 573 F.2d 783 (3d Cir. 1978) (upholding a conviction under a federal telephone harassment | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Kipf
green
2 sentences2021See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 363 (2003) (the “First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate” a person or group of persons); United States v. Waggy, 936 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019) (upholding as constitutional a statute that prohibited making telephone calls with the intent to harass, intimidate, or torment another; although the statute at issue contained a speech component, the defendant was convicted for his specific conduct); United States v. Lampley, 573 F.2d 783 (3d Cir. 1978) (upholding a conviction under a federal telephone harassment 2021See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 363 (2003) (the “First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate” a person or group of persons); United States v. Waggy, 936 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019) (upholding as constitutional a statute that prohibited making telephone calls with the intent to harass, intimidate, or torment another; although the statute at issue contained a speech component, the defendant was convicted for his specific conduct); United States v. Lampley, 573 F.2d 783 (3d Cir. 1978) (upholding a conviction under a federal telephone harassment | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. Robert Waggy
green
2 sentences2021See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 363 (2003) (the “First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate” a person or group of persons); United States v. Waggy, 936 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019) (upholding as constitutional a statute that prohibited making telephone calls with the intent to harass, intimidate, or torment another; although the statute at issue contained a speech component, the defendant was convicted for his specific conduct); United States v. Lampley, 573 F.2d 783 (3d Cir. 1978) (upholding a conviction under a federal telephone harassment 2021See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 363 (2003) (the “First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate” a person or group of persons); United States v. Waggy, 936 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019) (upholding as constitutional a statute that prohibited making telephone calls with the intent to harass, intimidate, or torment another; although the statute at issue contained a speech component, the defendant was convicted for his specific conduct); United States v. Lampley, 573 F.2d 783 (3d Cir. 1978) (upholding a conviction under a federal telephone harassment | 1 | 2021–2021 |
cluster 2144
green
1 sentence2013It was in response to the Government’s unbridled argument, which the Supreme Court characterized as a new “free-floating” First Amendment test that was “startling and dangerous,” Stevens, ___ U.S. at ____, 130 S. Ct. at 1585 , that the Court distinguished some of its previous comments. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Hidden Hollow Ranch v. Collins
green
2 sentences2007Apparently preferring the absurd to the reasonable, this Court, regrettably, flouts the longstanding rule that “[i]t is always to be presumed that no absurd or unreasonable result was intended by the complainant,” Hidden Hollow Ranch, 146 Mont. at 326 , 406 P.2d at 367-68 . ¶70 The Court does, at one point, evince cognizance of the fact that Kelleher and Jones raised a First Amendment claim. 2007Apparently preferring the absurd to the reasonable, this Court, regrettably, flouts the longstanding rule that “[i]t is always to be presumed that no absurd or unreasonable result was intended by the complainant,” Hidden Hollow Ranch, 146 Mont. at 326 , 406 P.2d at 367-68 . ¶70 The Court does, at one point, evince cognizance of the fact that Kelleher and Jones raised a First Amendment claim. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Reidelbach v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.
green
2 sentences2007Co., 2002 MT 289, ¶ 14 , 312 Mont. 498, ¶ 14 , 60 P.3d 418, ¶ 14 , Kelleher and Jones stated a cognizable First Amendment claim and the District Court erred in dismissing that claim. 2007Co., 2002 MT 289, ¶ 14 , 312 Mont. 498, ¶ 14 , 60 P.3d 418, ¶ 14 , Kelleher and Jones stated a cognizable First Amendment claim and the District Court erred in dismissing that claim. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer
green
2 sentences2002See Bush v. Lucas (1983), 462 U.S. 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (Court declined to create a Bivens remedy for First Amendment violation); Chappell v. Wallace (1983), 462 U.S. 296 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (Court declined to allow enlisted military personnel a Bivens-type remedy against their superior officers); United States v. Stanley (1987), 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (no Bivens remedy available for injuries that arise out of military activity “incident to service”); Schweiker v. Chilicky (1988), 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (Court decl 2002See Bush v. Lucas (1983), 462 U.S. 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (Court declined to create a Bivens remedy for First Amendment violation); Chappell v. Wallace (1983), 462 U.S. 296 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (Court declined to allow enlisted military personnel a Bivens-type remedy against their superior officers); United States v. Stanley (1987), 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (no Bivens remedy available for injuries that arise out of military activity “incident to service”); Schweiker v. Chilicky (1988), 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (Court decl | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Schweiker v. Chilicky
green
2 sentences2002See Bush v. Lucas (1983), 462 U.S. 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (Court declined to create a Bivens remedy for First Amendment violation); Chappell v. Wallace (1983), 462 U.S. 296 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (Court declined to allow enlisted military personnel a Bivens-type remedy against their superior officers); United States v. Stanley (1987), 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (no Bivens remedy available for injuries that arise out of military activity “incident to service”); Schweiker v. Chilicky (1988), 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (Court decl 2002See Bush v. Lucas (1983), 462 U.S. 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (Court declined to create a Bivens remedy for First Amendment violation); Chappell v. Wallace (1983), 462 U.S. 296 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (Court declined to allow enlisted military personnel a Bivens-type remedy against their superior officers); United States v. Stanley (1987), 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (no Bivens remedy available for injuries that arise out of military activity “incident to service”); Schweiker v. Chilicky (1988), 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (Court decl | 1 | 2002–2002 |
United States v. Stanley
green
2 sentences2002See Bush v. Lucas (1983), 462 U.S. 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (Court declined to create a Bivens remedy for First Amendment violation); Chappell v. Wallace (1983), 462 U.S. 296 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (Court declined to allow enlisted military personnel a Bivens-type remedy against their superior officers); United States v. Stanley (1987), 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (no Bivens remedy available for injuries that arise out of military activity “incident to service”); Schweiker v. Chilicky (1988), 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (Court decl 2002See Bush v. Lucas (1983), 462 U.S. 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (Court declined to create a Bivens remedy for First Amendment violation); Chappell v. Wallace (1983), 462 U.S. 296 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (Court declined to allow enlisted military personnel a Bivens-type remedy against their superior officers); United States v. Stanley (1987), 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (no Bivens remedy available for injuries that arise out of military activity “incident to service”); Schweiker v. Chilicky (1988), 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (Court decl | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Chappell v. Wallace
green
2 sentences2002See Bush v. Lucas (1983), 462 U.S. 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (Court declined to create a Bivens remedy for First Amendment violation); Chappell v. Wallace (1983), 462 U.S. 296 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (Court declined to allow enlisted military personnel a Bivens-type remedy against their superior officers); United States v. Stanley (1987), 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (no Bivens remedy available for injuries that arise out of military activity “incident to service”); Schweiker v. Chilicky (1988), 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (Court decl 2002See Bush v. Lucas (1983), 462 U.S. 367 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (Court declined to create a Bivens remedy for First Amendment violation); Chappell v. Wallace (1983), 462 U.S. 296 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (Court declined to allow enlisted military personnel a Bivens-type remedy against their superior officers); United States v. Stanley (1987), 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (no Bivens remedy available for injuries that arise out of military activity “incident to service”); Schweiker v. Chilicky (1988), 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (Court decl | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Roots v. Montana Human Rights Network
green
2 sentences1999All parties to this action refer this Court’s attention to its own analysis in Roots v. Montana Human Rights Network (1996), 275 Mont. 408 , 913 P.2d 638 , where we established the following rule pertaining to opinion speech derived from the United States Supreme Court decision in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), 497 U.S. 1 , 100 S.Ct. 2695 , 111 L.Ed.2d 1 : The First Amendment protects statements of opinion on matters of public concern where they do not contain a provable false factual connotation or where they cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individua 1999All parties to this action refer this Court’s attention to its own analysis in Roots v. Montana Human Rights Network (1996), 275 Mont. 408 , 913 P.2d 638 , where we established the following rule pertaining to opinion speech derived from the United States Supreme Court decision in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), 497 U.S. 1 , 100 S.Ct. 2695 , 111 L.Ed.2d 1 : The First Amendment protects statements of opinion on matters of public concern where they do not contain a provable false factual connotation or where they cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individua | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
green
2 sentences1999All parties to this action refer this Court’s attention to its own analysis in Roots v. Montana Human Rights Network (1996), 275 Mont. 408 , 913 P.2d 638 , where we established the following rule pertaining to opinion speech derived from the United States Supreme Court decision in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), 497 U.S. 1 , 100 S.Ct. 2695 , 111 L.Ed.2d 1 : The First Amendment protects statements of opinion on matters of public concern where they do not contain a provable false factual connotation or where they cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individua 1999All parties to this action refer this Court’s attention to its own analysis in Roots v. Montana Human Rights Network (1996), 275 Mont. 408 , 913 P.2d 638 , where we established the following rule pertaining to opinion speech derived from the United States Supreme Court decision in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), 497 U.S. 1 , 100 S.Ct. 2695 , 111 L.Ed.2d 1 : The First Amendment protects statements of opinion on matters of public concern where they do not contain a provable false factual connotation or where they cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individua | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Lance
green
2 sentences1990Lance, 222 Mont. at 100-102 , 721 P.2d at 1264 -65 (citing New York v. Ferber (1982), 458 U.S. 747, 771 , 102 S.Ct. 3348, 3362 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113, 1132 ). 1990Lance, 222 Mont. at 100-102 , 721 P.2d at 1264 -65 (citing New York v. Ferber (1982), 458 U.S. 747, 771 , 102 S.Ct. 3348, 3362 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113, 1132 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
New York v. Ferber
green
2 sentences1990Lance, 222 Mont. at 100-102 , 721 P.2d at 1264 -65 (citing New York v. Ferber (1982), 458 U.S. 747, 771 , 102 S.Ct. 3348, 3362 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113, 1132 ). 1990Lance, 222 Mont. at 100-102 , 721 P.2d at 1264 -65 (citing New York v. Ferber (1982), 458 U.S. 747, 771 , 102 S.Ct. 3348, 3362 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113, 1132 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.