230 Mich. App. 607 - Ireland v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions

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

1. “A communication is defamatory if it tends to lower an individual’s reputation in the community or deters third persons from associating or dealing with that individual. However, not all defamatory statements are actionable. If a statement cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts about the plaintiff, it is protected by the First Amendment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fritz v. Charter Township of Com-Stock · 322 Mich. App. 1 - James Edwards v. Detroit News Inc

2. “The Supreme Court has made it clear that the above limitations on actionability [of claims of defamation] (statements must be provable as false, statements must be understandable as stating actual facts about the plaintiff, and, in the case of public-official or public-figure plaintiffs, the plaintiffs must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence) are First Amendment limitations. Hustler Magazine [v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 , 108 S.Ct. 876 , 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988)]. Thus, because all of plaintiffs claims are based on the same statements, and she cannot overcome the First Amendment limitations regarding these statements, summary disposition was properly granted with regard to all of plaintiffs claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 396 F. Supp. 2d 783 - Nichols v. Moore

3. “Actual malice is defined as knowledge that the published statement was false or as reckless disregard as to whether the statement was false or not. Reckless disregard for the truth is not established merely by showing that the statements were made with preconceived objectives or insufficient investigations. Furthermore, ill will, spite or even hatred, standing alone, do not amount to actual malice. ‘Reckless disregard’ is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published or would have investigated before publishing, but whether the publisher in fact entertained serious doubts concerning the truth of the statements published.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 396 F. Supp. 2d 783 - Nichols v. Moore