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.
8 Virgin Islands opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virgin Islands 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 |
|---|---|---|
Joseph v. Daily News Publishing Co.green2 sentences2016To succeed on a defamation claim under Virgin Islands law, a party must show: “a false and defamatory statement concerning another”; “an unprivileged publication to a third party”; “fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher”; and “either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.” Joseph v. Daily News Publ’g Co., 57 V.I. 566, 585-87 (V.I. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see id. at 585 n.10 (explaining that these basic elements of defamation were adopted after examining 2016To succeed on a defamation claim under Virgin Islands law, a party must show: “a false and defamatory statement concerning another”; “an unprivileged publication to a third party”; “fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher”; and “either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.” Joseph v. Daily News Publ’g Co., 57 V.I. 566, 585-87 (V.I. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see id. at 585 n.10 (explaining that these basic elements of defamation were adopted after examining | 1 | 3 |
cluster 759280green1 sentence2026Elaborating on regulation in a “public utility sense” in the context of airline services, our Court said that regulations of “the frequency and scheduling of transportation” and “the selection of markets” are public-utility styled regulations (which would thus be preempted under the ADA), whereas “provision of in-flight beverages, personal assistance to passengers. the handling of luggage, and similar amenities” are not services in a “public utility sense,” and thus could be regulated, for instance through state implementation of a duty to exercise reasonable care, the violation of which could | 1 | 1 |
Taj Mahal Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines Inc. Air Canada Airlines Reporting Corporationgreen1 sentence2026Mass. 2009) 106 “Before the Supreme Court's rulings in Rowe and Dan's City, our Court once framed the inquiry—albeit in the context of whether a defamation claim was preempted under the ADA (a question we answered in the negative holding that the defamation claim was not preempted)——as whether the law or claim in question would “frustrate[ ] deregulation by interfering with competition through public utility-style regulation.” Taj Mahal Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 164 F.3d 186, 194 (3d Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Chestnut v. Goodmangreen1 sentence2024Id. at 630 (citing Chestnut v. Goodman, 59 V.I. 467, 475 (V.I. 2013)). ¶ 45 Because we uphold the Superior Court’s decision to vacate the jury’s verdict on the defamation claim against Hanley, we need to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to reinstate the punitive damages award against Hanley based on the intentional misrepresentation claim. | 1 | 1 |
Joseph v. Bureau of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2017At the time Mills-Williams moved to amend her complaint, she was required to plead “a short and plain statement of the claim and its grounds.” Joseph v. Bureau of Corrections, 54 V.I. 644, 650 (V.I. 2011) (quoting Robles, 49 V.I. at 499 ). | 1 | 1 |
Banks v. International Rental & Leasing Corp.green1 sentence2016To succeed on a defamation claim under Virgin Islands law, a party must show: “a false and defamatory statement concerning another”; “an unprivileged publication to a third party”; “fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher”; and “either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.” Joseph v. Daily News Publ’g Co., 57 V.I. 566, 585-87 (V.I. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see id. at 585 n.10 (explaining that these basic elements of defamation were adopted after examining | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virgin Islands. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harvey v. Christopher
green
1 sentence2017Harvey v. Christopher, 55 V.I. 565 , 569 n.2 (V.I. 2011). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Robles v. Hovensa, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2017At the time Mills-Williams moved to amend her complaint, she was required to plead “a short and plain statement of the claim and its grounds.” Joseph v. Bureau of Corrections, 54 V.I. 644, 650 (V.I. 2011) (quoting Robles, 49 V.I. at 499 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2016Additionally, because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the freedom of expression in the Virgin Islands, a party cannot succeed on a defamation claim if doing so would infringe on this fundamental right. 8 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 298 , 84 S. Ct. 710 , 11 L. 2016Additionally, because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the freedom of expression in the Virgin Islands, a party cannot succeed on a defamation claim if doing so would infringe on this fundamental right. 8 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 298 , 84 S. Ct. 710 , 11 L. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kendall v. Daily News Publishing Co.
green
1 sentence2016Kendall, 55 V.I. at 788 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Even granting the possibility that Joseph has demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact relative to elements one, two, and four of a defamation claim as described in Section IV.A. supra, she is barred from recovery as a result of her failure to establish “actual malice” by clear and convincing evidence. 13 The record simply cannot “support a reasonable jury finding . . . that the plaintiff has shown actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255-56 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Cohen v. Raedler
green
1 sentence1998Cohen, supra. In this case, the defendants have established beyond any doubt that the plaintiff embezzled money from the business. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.