DeCarvalho v. DaSilva’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably Casso v. Brand (1989), Gazette, Inc. v. Harris (1985)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 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 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · St. Amant v. Thompson · Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts · Garrison v. State of Louisiana
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““it appears that the present state of the law, as enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States, imposes upon states two major bodies of restrictions in respect to allowing recovery for defamatory publications. * * * In the event that exemplary damages are to be awarded, then the ‘actual malice’ element must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The evidence clearly supported the trial justice's finding that there had been no reckless disregard of the truth. The evidence further established that the defendant entertained no serious doubts about the truth of his assertions. At bottom, the gravamen of the plaintiff’s complaint is that the defendant exaggerated the seriousness of the offense. Although the trial justice substantially agreed that the defendant’s language was harsh and that the offense was of minor significance, these factors would not deprive the defendant of the shield furnished by the ‘actual malice’ test.” 414 A.2d at 815 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Major v. Drapeau““The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’ —that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. at 726 , 11 L.Ed.2d at 706 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Hawkins v. Oden
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.