Carr v. Brasher’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 570 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 595 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Knott (2003), Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis (2001)
7 federal appellate · 570 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston))
Relationships
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · St. Amant v. Thompson · Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
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 595 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Although we chose in Casso not to carve out a special exception to our summary judgment practice for public figure and public official defamation cases, the court, in overruling Bessent [v. Times-Herald, 709 S.W.2d 635 (Tex. 1986)] and Beaumont Enterprise [& Journal v. Smith, 687 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1985)] made it possible for defendants to obtain a summary judgment in such cases. In Casso , the defendant (Casso) submitted an affidavit and supporting evidence establishing that he did not believe that certain allegations he made were false and that he did not act with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity in repeating those allegations in his campaign advertising. As evidence supporting his motion for summary judgment, Casso submitted his affidavit and certain testimony from a pending federal trial. He asserted in his affidavit that this testimony formed the basis of his allegedly defamatory statements. The court in Casso held that because the plaintiff, Brand, “presented no controverting proof, summary judgment as to these statements was proper.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[a]ll assertions of opinion are protected by the first amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution.” Id. at 570 . However, the U.S. Supreme Court has since rejected the notion of a blanket constitutional privilege for all statements characterized as”
2 later decisions 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.