Janklow v. Viking Press’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2025
13 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. · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · St. Amant v. Thompson · 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] court ruling on a motion for summary judgment [involving a public figure plaintiff] must be guided by the New York Times “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard in determining whether a genuine issue of actual malice exists — that is, whether the evidence presented is such that a reasonable jury might find that actual malice had been shown with convincing clarity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) libel by clear and convincing evidence; (2) more than a defendant’s failure to investigate; (3) that the defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth; (4) that the defendant had a high degree of awareness of falsity; and (5 that the defendant had obvious reason to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he precision and specificity with which an assertion is made may reflect the extent to which it actually recites specific factual events. Specificity also goes to the singularity of a statement’s meaning. Where a statement or phrase is susceptible of more than one meaning, we will not presume either that the phrase means what the plaintiff asserts it does or that it is factual where it can be understood as an opinion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Krueger v. Austad
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.