Hackworth v. Larson’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Johnson v. Dirkswager (1982), Lamp v. First National Bank of Garretson (1993)
2 federal appellate · 40 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 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · St. Amant v. Thompson · Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts · Garrison v. State of Louisiana · Barr v. Matteo
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Defendant Larson was a constitutional officer and the incident in question involved her duty of hiring and discharging the personnel of her office. Clearly, the release which she issued had a real relation to the general matters committed by law to her control and supervision. It has long been recognized that a defamatory statement issued by a public official in the proper discharge of his official duties is absolutely privileged. This is the purport of SDC 47.0503 which provides: 'A privileged communication is one made: (1) In the proper discharge of an official duty; (2) In any legislative or judicial proceeding, or in any other official proceeding authorized by law.' See also Restatement of the Law, Torts, § 591; Harper & James, Law of Torts, p. 429; Prosser, Law of Torts, 3d Ed., § 109. The defense of absolute privilege or immunity under the law of defamation avoids all liability. In issuing the press release in question defendant Larson enjoyed absolute privilege even if it contained false or inaccurate statements, which we need not determine. Consequently, discovery concerning the truth of the release or her purpose and state of mind in issuing it would be meaningless."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Little v. Spaeth · Waln v. Putnam““If it is made clearly to appear on such a motion that even though there is an issue under the pleadings there is in fact no dispute as to the controlling material facts, then the court should enter summary judgment.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 , 85 S.Ct. 209 , 13 L.Ed.2d 125 , it was held that statements made with personal malice and without reasonable grounds to believe them true were not sufficient to show reckless disregard because even where personal malice is present defea-sance of the protection cannot be based on unreasonableness or mere negligence .... Plaintiffs take the position that AP’s failure to make a further investigation into the matter before disseminating its dispatch constitutes malice. This was their only contention in this area in argument and for which they submitted proof in resistance of the motion for summary judgment. This view has been rejected by the U.S.. Supreme Court. In New York Times it held that the failure of defendant to investigate the validity of statements was constitutionally insufficient to show reckless disregard.”
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.