Winrod v. Time, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 8 district · 22 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First: The plaintiff should be required to unite in one complaint, all causes of action for all publications of all libels, published by the same defendant, prior to the commencement of the action, to the end that in one suit all damages to plaintiff’s reputation shall be awarded. In such suit he should be allowed to prove all subsequent libels of the same or similar accusations up to the time of the trial. In this suit all republications may be considered by the jury on the question of malice, and a judgment should be a bar to all subsequent suits for any similar publication up to the trial. Second: The test of whether the article is a republication or a repetition should not depend on an interval of time, or a separate sale but upon the answer to the question. Was the act of the defendant a conscious independent one? The individual who sends the same letter to different persons at the same or another time, consciously and intentionally and independently does so. Each separate mailing is a separate conscious act. Each would then be provable as showing conscious intent. Whereas, in the case of a newspaper, as the circulation is considered one of the chief items of damage, and plaintiff recovers for all the distribution, no conscious intent arises until the defendant consciously as a second edition republishes the article. In each case it is the conscious act which determines. If these simple rules are followed, the plaintiff will be compelled, as he should, to litigate in one”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 131 N.J. Super. 371 - Barres v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. · 636 F. Supp. 1530 - Wathan v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States

2. ““[T]he release of miscellaneous copies incidental to the general publication either through the mail or on newsstands does not constitute a new publication or create a new cause of action ° ° °. The interval of time or a separate sale should not be the sole determining factor whether the article is a republication or a repetition of the defamatory material * * * [I]n the case of a newspaper or magazine no conscious intent arises until the defendant consciously as a second edition republishes the article.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 60 Ill. App. 3d 586 - Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D. C. v. American Medical Ass'n

3. “It thus appears that the majority in the Wolfson case supported their conclusion and reasoning on the theory enunciated in Seelman that only where there is a new edition or reprinting of a certain issue of a newspaper or magazine the conscious intent of the defendant to republish the libel becomes effective. [ 78 N.E. 2d at 713 ] The decisions after Winrod v. Time, Inc., supra , and the commentary to the Restatement, Torts 2d, Tentative Draft No. 20, § 577A (April 24, 1974), have not used the expressions”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 131 N.J. Super. 371 - Barres v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.