883 F. Supp. 2d 441 - Biro v. Condé Nast’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defamation is the injury to one's reputation either by written expression, which is libel, or by oral expression, which is slander.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cortes v. Twenty-First Century Fox Am., Inc. · Gibson v. Sce Grp., Inc.

2. “There is little question that a reader may walk away from the Article with a negative impression of Biro, but that impression would be largely the result of statements of fact that Biro does not allege to be false. There can be no claim for an overall defamatory impact from the reporting of true statements beyond the specific defamatory implications that may arise from those specific statements. More fundamentally, the Article as a whole does not make express accusations against Biro, or suggest concrete conclusions about whether or not he is a fraud. Rather, it lays out evidence that may raise questions, and allows the reader to make up his or her own mind. In that regard it is similar to the article at issue in the Chapin case in the Fourth Circuit. There, the article raised questions about the legitimacy of a charitable organization that sent gift packages to U.S. soldiers stationed abroad. The court concluded that the article “is a story constructed around questions, not conclusions.” Chapin [v. Knight-Ridder, Inc.], 993 F.2d [1087] at 1098 [ (4th Cir.1993) ]. The court continued: But the mere raising of questions is, without more, insufficient to sustain a defamation suit in these circumstances. Questions are not necessarily accusations or affronts. Nor do they necessarily insinuate derogatory answers. They may simply be, as they are here, expressions of uncertainty. The ... article advances alternative answers to the questions it raises, presenting both favorable and un”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 963 F. Supp. 2d 255 - Biro v. Condé Nast

3. “[I]f a communication, viewed in its entire context, merely conveys materially true facts from which a defamatory inference can reasonably be drawn, the libel is not established. But if the communication, by the particular manner or language in which the true facts are conveyed, supplies additional, affirmative evidence suggesting that the defendant intends or endorses the defamatory inference, the communication will be deemed capable of bearing that meaning.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Verity v. USA TODAY