Eramo v. Rolling Stone, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Carnegie v. United States · St. Amant v. Thompson
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[r]epetition of another's words does not release one of responsibility if the repeater knows that the words are false or inherently improbable, or there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the person quoted.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]hile actual malice cannot be inferred from ill will or intent to injure alone, 'it cannot be said that evidence of motive or care never bears any relation to the actual malice inquiry.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the plaintiff had access to channels of effective communication; (2) the plaintiff voluntarily assumed a role of special prominence in the public controversy; (3) the plaintiff sought to influence the resolution or outcome of the controversy; (4) the controversy existed prior to the publication of the defamatory statement; and (5) the plaintiff retained public-figure status at the time of the alleged defamation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gilmore v. Jones
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.