Johnson v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1878
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently January 2002 · most notably Near v. State of Minnesota Olson (1931), 173 W. Va. 699 - Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc. (1984)
2 federal appellate · 66 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 White v. Nicholls · Commonwealth v. Clap · Hastings v. Lusk · Marsh v. . Ellsworth · Lawson v. Hicks
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We have thus taken a view of the authorities which treat of the doctrines of slander and libel, and have considered those authorities particularly with reference to the distincti n they establish between ordinary instances of slander, written and unwritten, and those which have been styled ‘privileged communications’; the peculiar character of which is said to exempt them from inferences which the law has created with respect to those cases that do not partake of that character. ■ Our examination, extended as it may seem to have been, has been called for by the importance of. a subject most intimately connected with the rights and happiness of individuals, as it is with the quiet and good order of society. The investigation has conducted us to the following conclusions, which we propound as the law applicable thereto: (1) That every publication, either by writing, printing, or pictures, which charges upon or imputes to any person that which renders him liable to punishment, or which is calculated to maké him infamous, or odious, or ridiculous, is prima facie a libel, an,d implies malice in the author and publisher towards the person concerning whom such publication- is made. Proof of malice, therefore, in the cases just described, can never be required of the party complaining beyond the proof of the publication itself. Justification, excuse, cr extenuation, if either can be shown, must proceed from the defendant. (2) That the description of cases recognized as privileged co”
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.