Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 N.M. 331 - Furgason v. Clausen

Furgason v. Clausen’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
4
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Bartlett v. Mirabal (2000), 97 Wash. App. 950 - Moe v. Wise (1999)

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 20 state decisions

1201989199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “those who occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes, and limited public figures, consisting of those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In determining whether [a person] is a limited public figure for defamation purposes, examination focuses on whether the defamatory material concerns a public controversy or topic of legitimate public concern, together with the nature and extent of [the person’s] participation in the controversy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]here a plaintiff in a defamation action is either a public official or a public figure, or where an allegedly defamatory statement involved a matter of public concern, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted with actual malice[.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.