Riley v. Harr’s Empirical Analysis
292 F.3d 282 · 2002
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Peterson v. Grisham (2010), Denver Publishing Co. v. Bueno (2002)
7 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 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 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. · Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is not actionable if “it is plain that the speaker is expressing a subjective view, an interpretation, a theory, conjecture, or surmise, rather than claiming to be in possession of objectively verifiable facts....” As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “when an author outlines the facts available to him, thus making it clear that the challenged statements represent his own interpretation of those facts and leaving the reader free to draw his own conclusions, those statements are generally protected by the First Amendment.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. SEC v. Lemelson · Salmon v. Lang“‘it is plain that the speaker is expressing a subjective view, an interpretation, a theory, conjecture, or surmise, rather than claiming to be in possession of objectively verifiable facts ....’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Howard v. Antilla · SEC v. Lemelson“authors would hesitate to venture beyond dry, colorless descriptions of facts, bereft of analysis or insight, and the threat of defamation lawsuits would discourage expressions of opinion by commentators, experts in a field, figures closely involved in a public controversy, or others whose perspectives might be of interest to the public.”
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.