Jones v. Garner’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Erickson v. Jones Street Publishers, LLC (2006), Goodwin v. Metts (1989)
4 federal appellate · 38 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 Rogers Ex Rel. Rogers v. Florence Printing Co. · Duncan v. the Record Publishing Co. · Cullum v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. · Nettles v. MacMillan Petroleum Corp. · Williamson v. Askin & Marine Co.
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Malice in law, or legal malice, is a presumption of law....' " 250 S.C. at 488, 158 S.E.2d at 913. It arises when a jury is permitted to infer malice from other facts and suffices to show malice in actions in which malice is a requisite element. See 250 S.C. at 488, 158 S.E.2d at 914. In contrast, "[a]ctual malice or malice in fact is not presumed and must be proved. Actual malice means that the defendant was actuated by ill will in what he did, with the design to causelessly and wantonly injure the plaintiff; or [acted] with such recklessness as to show a conscious indifference toward plaintiff's rights.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“However, the privilege attending the publication of a news report arises by reason of the occasion of the communication, and a communication or statement which abuses or goes beyond the requirement of the occasion, loses the protection of the privilege. Cullum v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 228 S.C. 384 , 90 S.E.2d 370 . The privilege extends only to a report of the contents of the public record and any matter added to the report by the publisher, which is defamatory of the person named in the public records, is not privileged.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]ll of the parts of the publication must be considered in order to ascertain the true meaning, and words are not to be given a meaning other than that which the context would show them to have.”
2 later decisions 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.