Flowers v. Carville’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.3d 1118 · 2002
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 16 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Knievel v. ESPN (2005), Gardner v. Martino (2009)
14 federal appellate · 16 district · 9 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Calder v. Jones
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a cause of action has arisen in another State ... and by the laws thereof an action thereon cannot there be maintained against a person by reason of the lapse of time, an action thereon shall not be maintained against him in [California], except in favor of one who has been a citizen of [California], and who has held the cause of action from the time it accrued.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[defendants argue that “doctor” can also be used in a neutral sense; Webster’s does define it alternatively as “to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment,” as in “[doctored] the play by tightening its whole structure and abridging the last act.” Id. We doubt, though, that anyone would understand the statement in this sense — just as we doubt that anyone would assume Flowers “doctored” the tapes by nursing them back to health. At the very least, it isn’t the only reasonable construction; if a statement is “susceptible of different constructions, one of which is defamatory, resolution of the ambiguity is a question of fact for the jury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Knievel v. ESPN“Defendants were not uninvolved third parties who clearly lacked access to the facts behind the published reports. If they knew that the news reports were false or had information from other sources that raised obvious doubts, then they didn’t ‘rely’ on the news stories; they simply hid behind them.... ... If Flowers can prove that [Defendants were involved in manufacturing the two news stories, she may be able to persuade a jury that they knew the stories were false or recklessly disregarded the truth.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.