Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 202 Ga. App. 587 - Eidson v. Berry

202 Ga. App. 587 - Eidson v. Berry’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2016

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

140199220002010decided

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 · 140 Ga. App. 49 - Williams v. Trust Co. of Ga. · 194 Ga. App. 287 - Barber v. Perdue · 110 Ga. App. 561 - Grayson v. Savannah News-Press, Inc.

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

  1. “[t]here is no “wholesale defamation exemption for anything that might be labeled ‘opinion.’ [To say otherwise would] ignore the fact that expressions of ‘opinion’ may often imply an assertion of objective fact.” Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., [ 497 U. S. 1 ] (110 SC 2695, 111 LE2d 1) [(1990)]. . . . The pivotal questions are whether [the challenged] statements can reasonably be interpreted as stating or implying defamatory facts about plaintiff and, if so, whether the defamatory assertions are capable of being proved false.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “There is no wholesale defamation exemption for anything that might be labeled opinion. To say otherwise would ignore the fact that expressions of opinion may often imply an assertion of objective fact. . . . The pivotal questions are whether [Lively’s] statements can reasonably be interpreted as stating or implying defamatory facts about [McDaniel] and, if so, whether the defamatory assertions are capable of being proved false.”
    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.