Herringer v. Ingberg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 8 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Any discommendatory language used of and concerning a person is liable to do him injury, although such injury is often inappreciable in law. But nothing is better settled than that much discommendatory language, whether written or spoken, is not actionable per se, because not calculated to do the person of whom it is published any injury appreciable or cognizable by the law. The courts have, for practical reasons and considerations of public policy, to draw the line somewhere, and this has often to be done by a gradual process of exclusion and inclusion, depending upon the particular facts of each case as it arises.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Talbot v. Mack

2. ““In determining whether a given publication is libelous, the language thereof must be taken in its ordinary signification, and construed in the light of what might reasonably have been understood therefrom by the persons who read it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Talbot v. Mack