Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 406 F.2d 565 - Time, Inc. v. McLaney

Time, Inc. v. McLaney’s Empirical Analysis

406 F.2d 565 · 1969

Citation profile

127
cited by 127 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 4 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 127 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. (1971), 22 Cal. 3d 672 - Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court (1978)

39 federal appellate · 4 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 16 states

860196919701980199020002010decided

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 · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Dombrowski v. Pfister · St. Amant v. Thompson · Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts

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

  1. ““At the outset, it may be appropriate to sound a caveat with respect to the action taken by this court in granting the application for interlocutory appeal, lest every unsuccessful litigant in the trial court should consider this action as a precedent requiring or even suggesting the advisability of seeking such an interlocutory appeal upon the denial by the trial court of his motion for summary judgment. The subject matter of this litigation, involving, as it does, the very serious and timely question of how far the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press may still be impinged upon by actions for libel, places some cases in a somewhat different category. This follows when the trial court and this court jointly consider that the failure to dismiss a libel suit might necessitate long and expensive trial proceedings, which, if not really warranted would themselves offend the principles enunciated by Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 , 85 S.Ct. 1116 , 14 L.Ed.2d 22 , * * * because of the chilling effect of such litigation.” Times, Inc. v. McLaney, 406 F.2d 565, 566 (5th Cir. 1969). (Emphasis added.)”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"... Where, however, it is plain that the record has been fully developed by depositions and affidavits on a motion for summary judgment, and such record demonstrates that, construing all of the facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom in favor of the party against whom the judgment is entered, he would not be entitled to have a jury verdict stand, we have not hesitated to hold that the grant of summary judgment is proper." ( McLaney, supra, at 571-572 ).”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ * * * the constitutional privilege extends to discussions by specific individuals, not associated with any government, if those individuals are involved in matters of important public concern. Such was the case of the plaintiff here. He had injected himself into an election campaign in a small foreign country in which the announced policy of the opposition to the present government was the elimination of racketeer gambling. He had supported the effort of this reform government by contributing substantial material aid, and thus lent a direct influence to the election of a national government for the country. Such activities as he engaged in, and his conduct as such a participant, are the proper subject of inquiry and of public interest.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.