660 So. 2d 17 - Davis v. Borskey’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 935 So. 2d 669 - Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge (2006), 830 So. 2d 967 - Mosing v. Domas (2002)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] public official plaintiff cannot recover for a defamatory statement relating to his or her official conduct, even if false, unless the public official proves actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ortego v. Hickerson · Lamz v. Wells“Appeals are taken from judgments, and not from findings on various issues in the course of the trial court's determination of the judgment. Plaintiff obtained a judgment in the trial court against both defendants in an amount satisfactory to him, and he had no reason to appeal or answer the appeal. Under the 1989 amendment to LSA-C.C. art. 2133 (which was designed to do away with useless protective appeals), plaintiff did not need to appeal or answer the appeal in order to raise any argument supported by the record in support of his judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Statements are defamatory only if the words, taken in context, tend to injure the person’s reputation, to expose the person to public ridicule, to deter others from associating or dealing with the person, or to deprive the person of public confidence in his or her occupation. The question for the court in determining whether words-have a defamatory meaning is whether a third person hearing the communication would have reasonably understood the communication, taken in context, as intended in a defamatory sense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.