Davis v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
754 F.2d 80 · 1985
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C. (2010), Lino Celle Radio Mindanao Network Usa Inc v. Filipino Reporter Enterprises Inc Libertito Pelayo (2000)
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 Conley v. Gibson · Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, Inc. · Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States · Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. · James v. Gannett Co.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“determine in what sense the words were used and understood”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In analyzing the words in order to ascertain whether a question of fact exists for resolution upon trial, the court will not pick out and isolate particular phrases but will consider the publication as ■ a whole. The publication will be tested by its effect upon the average reader. The language will be given a fair reading and the court will not. strain to place a particular interpretation on the published words. The statement complained of will be read against the background of its issuance with respect to the circumstances of its publication. It is the duty of the court, in an action for libel, to understand the publication in the same manner that others would naturally do. The construction which it behooves a court of justice to put on a publication which is alleged to be libelous is to be derived as well from the expressions used as from the whole scope and apparent object of the writer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““1. The Court must consider the publication as a whole and not pick out and isolate particular phrases.” “2. The publication should be tested by its effect on the average reader. The Court should neither construe the words with technical precision or strain to place a particular interpretation on them, nor should the Court interpret the words in their mildest and most inoffensive sense to hold them non-libelous.” “3. The Court should read the accused words against the background of their issuance with respect to the circumstances of their publication and the scope and apparent object of the writer.” Id. at 939 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.