Piccone v. Bartels’s Empirical Analysis
785 F.3d 766 · 2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. · Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. · Levinsky's, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · Phantom Touring, Inc. v. Affiliated Publications · Bander v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The First Amendment generally protects statements of opinion where the speaker 'outlines the facts available to him, thus making it clear that the challenged statements represent his own interpretation of those facts . . . .'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. SEC v. Lemelson · Salmon v. Lang“[T]he speaker can immunize his statement from defamation liability by fully disclosing the non-defamatory facts on which his opinion is based.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a statement cannot be defamatory if it is plain that the speaker is expressing a subjective view, an interpretation, a theory, conjecture, or surmise, rather than claiming to be in possession of objectively verifiable facts.”
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.