Rev. Clarence Kelly,’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Bentley v. Bunton (2002), Northrop v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc. (1997)
1 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 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 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, Inc. · Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States · Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. · Geisler v. Petrocelli
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]n a motion to dismiss ..., the issue is not whether the court regards the language as libelous, but whether it is reason ably susceptible of such a construction. ‘The court may not ... interfere with the jury’s role by treating as nondefamatory a statement that a reasonable juror may fairly read in context as defamatory.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“is apparently so clearly considered by both parties to be capable of resolution that they are currently litigating the question of ownership in a separate action. See Brief for Appellees at 12 n. **. 35 Even if the first three Mr. Chow factors were not successfully met, as we conclude they are in this case, we would reach the same conclusion by application of the fourth and final factor, namely, that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The test of a complaint’s sufficiency is whether it is detailed and informative enough ‘to enable defendant to respond and to raise the defense of res judicata if appropriate.... The central concern is that the complaint ‘afford defendant sufficient notice of the communications complained of to enable him to defend himself.’”
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.