652 So. 2d 444 - Stembridge v. Mintz’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2018
1 federal appellate · 11 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 Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. · Brown v. Texas · 412 So. 2d 461 - Swartz v. Swartz · 581 So. 2d 1305 - State v. James · 563 So. 2d 622 - Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp.
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.
“[S]tatements of pure opinion cannot constitute actionable defamation.... `Pure opinion occurs when the defendant makes a comment or opinion based on facts which are set forth in the article or which are otherwise known or available to the reader or listener as a member of the public.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is the court's function to determine from the context "whether an expression of opinion is capable of bearing a defamatory meaning because it may reasonably be understood to imply the assertion of undisclosed facts that justify the expressed opinion about the plaintiff or his conduct...." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566, comment c. If [defendant's] statement would likely be reasonably understood by ordinary persons as a statement of an undisclosed existing defamatory fact, then it was properly the jury's function to determine whether a defamatory meaning was attributed to it by recipients of the communication....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`the withdrawal of the technical admissions and acceptance of the belated response would serve to facilitate the presentation of the case on its evidentiary merits.' Trial courts are required to look beyond the pleadings to determine the propriety of entering summary judgment. Here, the record is replete with evidence contradicting the admissions created by Sher's failure to file a timely response.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mahmoud v. King
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.