Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 719 SW2D 612 - Langston v. Eagle Publishing Co.

Langston v. Eagle Publishing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Arabian Shield Development Co. v. Hunt (1991), Kelly v. Diocese of Corpus Christi (1992)

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

1401986199020002010decided

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 Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. · Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn · Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation · Delgado v. Burns · Newspapers, Inc. v. Matthews

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

  1. “The libel-proof doctrine has also developed along a second path, called the “incremental” approach, which requires the court to evaluate the defendant’s communication in its entirety and to consider the effects of the challenged portion of the communication on the plaintiffs reputation in the context of the entire communication.... The incremental approach comes into play when the plaintiff only challenges a small or tangential part of an overwhelmingly negative communication.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The breach of duty or conduct of officers and directors which would authorize, in a proper case, the court’s interference in suits of this character is that which is characterized by ultra vires, fraudulent, and injurious practices, abuse of power, and oppression on the part of the company or its controlling agency clearly subversive of the rights of the minority, or of a shareholder, and which, without such interference, would leave the latter remediless. Id.”
    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.