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 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
Greg Rushford, the Washington Post Company, Intervenor v. The New Yorker Magazine, Inc., and William Shawn Reneta Adlergreen2 sentences2002Restatement, supra, § 611 cmts. d, e, f; see also Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 254 (4th Cir. 1988); Ditton, 947 F. Supp. at 230 . 2002Restatement, supra, § 611 cmt. d, e, f; see also Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 254 (4th Cir.1988); Ditton, 947 F.Supp. at 230 . | 2 | 2 |
Moe v. Wisegreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Lillig, 105 Wn.2d at 657-58 ; Moe, 97 Wn. 2002Compare Ditton, 947 F. Supp. at 230 (analyzing applicability of the section 611 privilege) with Moe, 97 Wn. | 2 | 2 |
Lillig v. Becton-Dickinsongreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Lillig, 105 Wn.2d at 657-58 ; Moe, 97 Wn. 2002See, e.g., Lillig v. Becton-Dickinson, 105 Wash.2d 653, 657-58 , 717 P.2d 1371 (1986); Moe v. Wise, 97 Wash.App. 950, 963 , 989 P.2d 1148 (1999). | 2 | 2 |
Ditton v. Legal Timesgreen2 sentences2002Restatement, supra, § 611 cmts. d, f; see also Ditton v. Legal Times, 947 F. Supp. 227, 230 (E.D. 2002Restatement, supra, § 611 cmts. d, e, f; see also Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 254 (4th Cir. 1988); Ditton, 947 F. Supp. at 230 . | 2 | 2 |
Sedore v. Recorder Pub. Co.green2 sentences2002Super. 137 , 716 A.2d 1196, 1209 (1998) (applying section 600 actual malice standard to the fair reporting privilege); but see also Schiavone Constr., 847 F.2d at 1085 n.25 (noting the inconsistency between the New Jersey actual malice standard applied in fair reporting cases and standard set forth in connection with section 611). 2002See, e.g., Stem v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 866 F.Supp. 355, 360 (W.D.Tenn.1994); Sedore v. Recorder Publ'g Co., 315 N.J.Super. 137 , 716 A.2d 1196, 1209 (1998) (applying Section 600 actual malice standard to the fair reporting privilege); but see also Schiavone Constr., 847 F.2d at 1085 n. 25 (noting the inconsistency between the New Jersey actual malice standard applied in fair reporting cases and standard set forth in connection with Section 611). | 2 | 2 |
Mattson v. Chronicle Publishing Co.green2 sentences2002Restatement, supra, § 611 cmt. a; see also Mattson v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 156 Ill. 2002Restatement, supra, § 611 cmt. a; see also Mattson v. Chronicle Publ'g Co., 156 Ill.App.3d 613 , 108 Ill.Dec. 724 , 509 N.E.2d 150, 152 (1987). | 2 | 2 |
Alpine Industries Computers, Inc. v. Cowles Publishing Co.green2 sentences2026“The fair reporting privilege applies where the communication is attributed properly to an official proceeding and the report is an accurate report of that proceeding or a fair abridgement.” Alpine Indus., 114 Wn. 2018"In the summary judgment context, the plaintiff will not overcome the fair reporting privilege if the reviewing court determines as a matter of law that the challenged report is a fair abridgment." Alpine, 114 Wn. | 1 | 6 |
Stem v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc.green2 sentences2002See, e.g., Stem v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 866 F.Supp. 355, 360 (W.D.Tenn.1994); Sedore v. Recorder Publ'g Co., 315 N.J.Super. 137 , 716 A.2d 1196, 1209 (1998) (applying Section 600 actual malice standard to the fair reporting privilege); but see also Schiavone Constr., 847 F.2d at 1085 n. 25 (noting the inconsistency between the New Jersey actual malice standard applied in fair reporting cases and standard set forth in connection with Section 611). 2002See, e.g., Stem v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 866 F.Supp. 355, 360 (W.D.Tenn.1994); Sedore v. Recorder Publ'g Co., 315 N.J.Super. 137 , 716 A.2d 1196, 1209 (1998) (applying Section 600 actual malice standard to the fair reporting privilege); but see also Schiavone Constr., 847 F.2d at 1085 n. 25 (noting the inconsistency between the New Jersey actual malice standard applied in fair reporting cases and standard set forth in connection with Section 611). | 1 | 1 |
Carolyn Kenney v. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company, D/B/A Kshb-Tv41green1 sentence2002See Kenney v. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co., 259 F.3d 922, 924 (8th Cir.2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schiavone Construction Co. And Ronald A. Schiavone, Individually, in 86-5839 v. Time, Inc., in 86-5920green2 sentences2002Co. v. Time, Inc., 847 F.2d 1069 , 1086 n.27 (3d Cir. 1988) (noting section 600 excludes the fair reporting privilege); Pittman, 836 F. Supp. at 384 n.ll (noting that the section 611 privilege “is to be distinguished from other conditional privileges which are lost upon showing of malice, in the traditional sense”). 2002Super. 137 , 716 A.2d 1196, 1209 (1998) (applying section 600 actual malice standard to the fair reporting privilege); but see also Schiavone Constr., 847 F.2d at 1085 n.25 (noting the inconsistency between the New Jersey actual malice standard applied in fair reporting cases and standard set forth in connection with section 611). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mark v. Seattle Times
green
2 sentences2008Id. "[W]hen applying the fair reporting privilege, we must first determine whether the offensive statements are attributable to an official proceeding." Alpine, 114 Wash.App. at 385 , 57 P.3d 1178 . 2008Id. “[W]hen applying the fair reporting privilege, we must first determine whether the offensive statements are attributable to an official proceeding.” Alpine, 114 Wn. | 4 | 2002–2008 |
Herron v. Tribune Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences2007Herron v. Tribune Publ’g Co., 108 Wn.2d 162, 179 , 736 P.2d 249 (1987). 2007Herron v. Tribune Publ’g Co., 108 Wn.2d 162, 179 , 736 P.2d 249 (1987). | 4 | 2002–2007 |
Clapp v. OLYMPIC VIEW PUB. CO., LLC.
green
2 sentences2026App 470, 475-76, 154 P.3d 230 (2007) (citing Alpine Indus., 114 Wn. 2018App. 470, 476 , 154 P.3d 230 (2007). | 2 | 2018–2026 |
Taskett v. King Broadcasting Co.
green
2 sentences2008The Alpine decision, itself, correctly describes and cites the applicable Washington standard of negligence for private plaintiffs. "[A] private individual who is neither a public figure nor official, may recover actual damages for a defamatory falsehood, concerning a subject of general or public interest, where the substance makes substantial dangers to reputation apparent, on a showing that in publishing the statement, the defendant knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that the statement was false, or would create a false impression in some material respect." Id. at 2008The Alpine decision, itself, correctly describes and cites the applicable Washington standard of negligence for private plaintiffs. “ ‘[A] private individual, who is neither a public figure nor official, may recover actual damages for a defamatory falsehood, concerning a subject of general or public interest, where the substance makes substantial dangers to reputation apparent, on a showing that in publishing the statement, the defendant knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that the statement was false, or would create a false impression in some material respect.’ ” I | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Alpine Industries v. Cowles Pub. Co.
green
2 sentences2008Undoubtedly, the trial court in this case relied upon this section when it found a privilege existed. ¶ 19 The proper application of the standard articulated in Alpine becomes clear at the end of the opinion where the court observes: "Assuming for discussion one or more of the challenged statements were too inaccurate for purposes of the fair reporting privilege and viewing the record in a light most favorable to Alpine, not even a scintilla of evidence indicates Mr. Sowa or Cowles had knowledge of any alleged falsity or that they were reckless." Id. at 394, 57 P.3d 1178 . 2008Id. "[W]hen applying the fair reporting privilege, we must first determine whether the offensive statements are attributable to an official proceeding." Alpine, 114 Wash.App. at 385 , 57 P.3d 1178 . | 2 | 2007–2008 |
O'Brien v. Tribune Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences2007App. 107, 117 , 499 P.2d 24 (1972), we held that because the filing of a pleading is a public and official act in the course of judicial proceedings, the fair reporting privilege attaches to pleadings even if the court has yet to act on them. 2007In O'Brien v. Tribune Publishing Co., 7 Wash.App. 107, 117 , 499 P.2d 24 (1972), we held that, because the filing of a pleading is a public and official act in the course of judicial proceedings, the fair reporting privilege attaches to pleadings even if the court has yet to act on them. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Green River Community College District No. 10 v. Higher Education Personnel Board
green
2 sentences2007Bd., 107 Wn.2d 427, 442-43 , 730 P.2d 653 (1986)). ¶27 Clapp and Sequim Valley did set forth debatable issues as to whether the fair reporting privilege applies. 2007Bd., 107 Wn.2d 427, 442-43 , 730 P.2d 653 (1986)). ¶27 Clapp and Sequim Valley did set forth debatable issues as to whether the fair reporting privilege applies. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Moloney v. Tribune Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences2002Herron, 108 Wn.2d at 179 ; Moloney, 26 Wn. 2002Herron, 108 Wn.2d at 179 ; Moloney, 26 Wn. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Pittman v. Gannett River States Publishing Corp.
green
2 sentences2002Co. v. Time, Inc., 847 F.2d 1069 , 1086 n.27 (3d Cir. 1988) (noting section 600 excludes the fair reporting privilege); Pittman, 836 F. Supp. at 384 n.ll (noting that the section 611 privilege “is to be distinguished from other conditional privileges which are lost upon showing of malice, in the traditional sense”). 2002Co. v. Time, Inc., 847 F.2d 1069 , 1086 n. 27 (3d Cir.1988) (noting Section 600 excludes the fair reporting privilege); Pittman, 836 F.Supp. at 384 n. 11 (noting that the Section 611 privilege "is to be distinguished from other conditional privileges that are lost upon showing of malice, in the traditional sense"). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Clapp v. Olympic View Publishing Co.
neutral
1 sentence2018"Because the filing of a pleading is a public and official act in the course of judicial proceedings, the fair reporting privilege attaches to pleadings even if the court has yet to act on them." Clapp v. Olympic View Publ'ci Co., 137 Wn. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Mark v. King Broadcasting Co.
green
1 sentence2002Herron, 108 Wash.2d at 179 , 736 P.2d 249 ; Mark, 96 Wash.2d at 487 , *1186 635 P.2d 1081 ; Mark, 27 Wash.App. at 351 n. 2, 618 P.2d 512 ; Moloney, 26 Wash.App. at 362 , 613 P.2d 1179 ; O'Brien, 19 Wash.App. at 194 , 575 P.2d 258 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
O'BRIEN v. Franich
neutral
2 sentences2002Herron, 108 Wash.2d at 179 , 736 P.2d 249 ; Mark, 96 Wash.2d at 487 , *1186 635 P.2d 1081 ; Mark, 27 Wash.App. at 351 n. 2, 618 P.2d 512 ; Moloney, 26 Wash.App. at 362 , 613 P.2d 1179 ; O'Brien, 19 Wash.App. at 194 , 575 P.2d 258 . 2002Herron, 108 Wash.2d at 179 , 736 P.2d 249 ; Mark, 96 Wash.2d at 487 , *1186 635 P.2d 1081 ; Mark, 27 Wash.App. at 351 n. 2, 618 P.2d 512 ; Moloney, 26 Wash.App. at 362 , 613 P.2d 1179 ; O'Brien, 19 Wash.App. at 194 , 575 P.2d 258 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.