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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 56 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Jacobs v. Frank.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jacobs v. Frank Anchor | green | “acting with knowledge that the statements are false or acting with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.” | 18 |
| 2 | Hanly v. Riverside Methodist Hospitals | green | “(1) defendant intended to cause emotional distress, or knew or should have known that actions taken would result in serious emotional distress; (2) defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) defendant's actions proximately caused plaintiff's psychic injury; and (4) the …” | 16 |
| 3 | Hahn v. Kotten | green | “fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs, in matters where his interest is concerned.” | 15 |
| 4 | Jacobs v. Frank | green | “in a qualified privilege case, 'actual malice' is defined as acting with knowledge that the statements are false or acting with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.” | 7 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.