Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 404 FSUPP 1041 - Hotchner v. Castillo-Puche

Hotchner v. Castillo-Puche’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
5
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Nader v. De Toledano (1979), Hotchner v. Castillo-Puche (1977)

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions

16019751980199020002010decided

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 · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Roth v. United States · St. Amant v. Thompson

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[M]ay rest on either of two alternative bases. In some instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. More commonly, an individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. In either case such persons assume special prominence in the resolution of public questions.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When looked at together these statements certainly ridicule Hotchner and impugn his reputation and character. As he seems to be an author who has worked in movies and TV, this could be a serious matter. To make matters worse I doubt whether any of these statements can be substantiated in any way. From reading the pages you sent, this treatment borders on “malice”, which together with “reckless disregard for the truth”, is a prime element in any libel action.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 88 , 86 S.Ct. 669, 677 , 15 L.Ed. 2d 597 (1966), or a”
    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.