Dodson v. Dicker’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · St. Amant v. Thompson · Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Company
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The plaintiff, Nellie Mitchell, also claims damages from the defendant for invasion of privacy by publicity which put Mrs. Mitchell in a false light. In order to prevail on this claim, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the following: One, that the false light in which she was placed by the publicity would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and Two, that the defendant acted with actual malice in publishing the statements at issue in this case. Actual malice means that Globe International intended, or recklessly failed to anticipate, that readers would construe the publicized matter as conveying actual facts or events concerning Mrs. Mitchell. A finding of actual malice requires a showing of more than mere negligence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“First, that he has sustained damages. Second, that Wal-Mart gave publicity to a matter concerning David Clark that placed him before the public in a false light. Third, that the false light in which David Clark was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Fourth, that Wal-Mart had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which David Clark would be placed. Fifth, that Wal-Mart had serious doubts as to the truth of the matter publicized. And sixth, that David Clark’s damages were proximately caused by Wal-Mart’s giving of such publicity. David Clark must prove his false light invasion of privacy claim against Wal-Mart by clear and convincing evidence.”
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.