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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austingreen2 sentences2016Falsity “The sine qua non of recovery for defamation ... is the existence of falsehood.” (Letter Carriers v. Austin (1974) 418 U.S. 264, 283 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 745 , 94 S.Ct. 2770 ].) “ ‘The falsehood requirement is grounded in the First Amendment itself. 2016Falsity “The sine qua non of recovery for defamation . . . is the existence of falsehood.” (Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austin (1974) 418 U.S. 264, 283 .) “ ‘The falsehood requirement is grounded in the First Amendment itself. | 3 | 4 |
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.green2 sentences2008However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ].)” (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 259-260 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) To state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, thus, a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of f 2008However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ].)” (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 259-260 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) To state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, thus, a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of f | 1 | 1 |
Ferlauto v. Hamshergreen2 sentences2008However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ].)” (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 259-260 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) To state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, thus, a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of f 2008However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ].)” (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 259-260 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) To state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, thus, a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of f | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examinergreen2 sentences2008However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ].)” (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 259-260 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) To state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, thus, a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of f 2008However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ].)” (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 259-260 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) To state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, thus, a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of f | 1 | 1 |
Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.green2 sentences2008However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ].)” (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 259-260 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) To state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, thus, a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of f 2008However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ].)” (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 259-260 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) To state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, thus, a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of f | 1 | 1 |
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.green2 sentences2008However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ].)” (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 259-260 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) To state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, thus, a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of f 2008However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.’ (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339-340 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 ], fn. omitted; Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 600-601 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 552 P.2d 425 ].)” (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 259-260 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 721 P.2d 87 ].) To state a defamation claim that survives a First Amendment challenge, thus, a plaintiff must present evidence of a statement of f | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carpenter v. Ashley
green
1 sentence1915Cas. 601, 83 P. 444 ]; Townshend on Libel, 3d ed., p. 332.) Besides, one cannot escape responsibility for a falsehood under the claim of privilege. ( Dauphiny v. Buhne, 153 Cal. 757 , [ 126 Am. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Dauphiny v. Buhne
green
1 sentence1915Cas. 601, 83 P. 444 ]; Townshend on Libel, 3d ed., p. 332.) Besides, one cannot escape responsibility for a falsehood under the claim of privilege. ( Dauphiny v. Buhne, 153 Cal. 757 , [ 126 Am. | 1 | 1915–1915 |