Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 F.3d 189 - Levin v. McPhee

Levin v. McPhee’s Empirical Analysis

119 F.3d 189 · 1997

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
2
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably 299 Ill. App. 3d 513 - Hopewell v. Vitullo (1998), Van Buskirk v. The New York Times Co L (2003)

7 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

2501997200020102020decided

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 Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. · James v. Gannett Co. · Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski · Cianci v. New Times Publishing Company · Mencher v. Chesley

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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A] threshold issue for resolution by the court is whether the statement alleged to have caused plaintiff an injury is reasonably susceptible to the defamatory meaning imputed to it.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In analyzing the words in order to ascertain whether a question of fact exists for resolution upon trial, the court will not pick out and isolate particular phrases but will consider the publication as ■ a whole. The publication will be tested by its effect upon the average reader. The language will be given a fair reading and the court will not. strain to place a particular interpretation on the published words. The statement complained of will be read against the background of its issuance with respect to the circumstances of its publication. It is the duty of the court, in an action for libel, to understand the publication in the same manner that others would naturally do. The construction which it behooves a court of justice to put on a publication which is alleged to be libelous is to be derived as well from the expressions used as from the whole scope and apparent object of the writer.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Though some statements may be characterized as hypothesis or conjecture, they may yet be actionable if they imply that the speaker's opinion is based on the speaker's knowledge of facts that are not disclosed to the reader.... On the other hand, if a statement of opinion either discloses the facts on which it is based or does not imply the existence of undisclosed facts, the opinion is not actionable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.