Bennett v. Seimiller’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 1990 · most notably Turner v. Halliburton Co. (1986), 7 Kan. App. 2d 603 - Gomez v. Hug (1982)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 19 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 Pollard v. Lyon · Jerald v. Houston · Steenson v. Wallace · Brinkley v. Fishbein · 22 N.J. Super. 129 - Dressler v. Mayer
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . In connection with the court’s duty it generally is held that in determining whether a writing or utterance is defamatory per se each part thereof must be considered in its relation to the others rather than separately. In other words, the entire statement must be fairly and reasonably construed as a whole. . . . Closely related to and actually a part of the foregoing principle of interpretation is the rule that words or phrases must not be taken out of context. The rule has its roots in justice. Words, which standing alone, would be actionable may not be so when taken in connection with their context. . . .” (pp. 767, 768.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is generally held that whether a statement is libelous or slanderous per se is, in the first instance, a question of law for the court. [Citations omitted.] “It is for the court to determine whether a certain word or words as employed reasonably admit of the meaning ascribed to them. (Doherty v. Kansas City Star [ 144 Kan. 206 , 59 P.2d 30 ].) If they are reasonably susceptible of constituting slander per se the court leaves it to the jury to say how the word or words were in fact understood.””
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.