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.
7 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Randall's Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2017See In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 593 (Tex. 2015) (identifying elements, but including burden of proving statement is false); Randall’s Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 646 (Tex. 1995) (holding, for private-individual plaintiff against a non-media defendant, falsity of statement is generally presumed and truth of statement is affirmative defense). 2016See In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 593 (identifying elements, but including burden of proving statement is false); Randall’s Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 646 (Tex.1995) (holding, for private-individual plaintiff against a non-media defendant, falsity of statement is generally presumed *661 and truth of statement is affirmative defense); see also Rehak, 404 S.W.3d at 727 n. 5. | 4 | 4 |
In re Lipskygreen2 sentences2016The elements for a defamation claim are “(1) the publication of a . . . statement of fact to a third party, (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff, (3) with the requisite degree of fault, and (4) damages, in some cases.” Id. at 593 (citing McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 571). 2015The elements for a defamation claim are “(1) the publication of a . . . statement of fact to a third party, (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff, (3) with the requisite degree of fault, and (4) damages, in some cases.” Id. at 593 (citing WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998)). | 3 | 5 |
Fawcett v. Rogersgreen1 sentence2024“In a suit by a private person against a non-media defendant, the elements for a defamation claim are (1) the publication of a statement of fact to a third party, (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff, (3) with the requisite degree of fault, and (4) damages, in some cases.” Fawcett v. Rogers, 492 S.W.3d 18, 25 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.). “[W]hen a defamation plaintiff is a private individual, he must establish that the defendant acted negligently regarding the truth of the statement.” Day v. Fed’n of State Med. | 1 | 1 |
Day v. Fed'n of State Med. Boards of the United States, Inc.green1 sentence2024Bds. of the U.S., 579 S.W.3d 810, 822 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2019, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Rehak Creative Services, Inc. and Robert Rehak v. Ann L. Witt, Ellen Witt, Raymond Witt and Ann Witt Campaigngreen1 sentence2016See In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 593 (identifying elements, but including burden of proving statement is false); Randall’s Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 646 (Tex.1995) (holding, for private-individual plaintiff against a non-media defendant, falsity of statement is generally presumed *661 and truth of statement is affirmative defense); see also Rehak, 404 S.W.3d at 727 n. 5. | 1 | 1 |
WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemoregreen1 sentence2015The elements for a defamation claim are “(1) the publication of a . . . statement of fact to a third party, (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff, (3) with the requisite degree of fault, and (4) damages, in some cases.” Id. at 593 (citing WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.