Fitzjarrald v. Panhandle Publishing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Musser v. Smith Protective Services, Inc. (1987), 54 Cal. 2d 643 - Maidman v. Jewish Publications, Inc. (1960)
11 federal appellate · 76 state decisions
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 Cotulla v. Kerr · Bradstreet Co. v. Gill · Cranfill v. Hayden · International & G. N. R. Co. v. Edmundson · Guisti v. Galveston Tribune
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Article 5430. 5595 Definitions “A libel is a defamation expressed in printing or writing, or by signs and pictures, or drawings tending to blacken the memory of the dead,'or tending to injure the reputation of one who is •alive, and thereby expose -him to public ‘hatred, contempt or-ridicule, or financial injury, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, or virtue, or reputation of any one; or to 'publish the natural defects of' any one ánd thereby expose such person to public hatred, ridicule, -or ' financial injury.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the pleadings and evidence in a case raise the issue as to whether an article published contains statements that are privileged and statements that are libelous per se, proper questions relating to such statements should be submitted to the jury. All statements that are privileged should be submitted to the jury for them to determine whether they were published with malice, and all statements libelous per se should be submitted to the jury for them to determine whether they are true or false. Each statement should be submitted separately. Respondent had the right to have the jury pass upon each statement separately, and if damages were recoverable, the instruction of the court should have limited the damages recoverable to those resulting from the publication of the privileged statements found to have been published with malice and the publication of those statements libelous per se found to be false.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The publication of the following matters by any newspaper or periodical shall be deemed privileged and shall not be made the basis for any action for libel. * * * * * * “4. A reasonable and fair comment or criticism of the official acts of public officials and of other matters of public concern published for general' information. “5. The privilege provided under * * * this article shall extend to any first publication of .such privileged matter * * * and to subsequent publication thereof * * * when * * * a matter of public concern * * * (but) may be made the basis of an action for libel upon proof that such matter has ceased to be of such public concern and that same was published with actual malice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rawlins v. McKee
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.