Capistrant v. Lifetouch Nat'l Sch. Studios, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co. · Carl Bolander & Sons Inc. v. United Stockyards Corp. · Northern States Power Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York · Commerce Bank v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company · Prince George's County v. Local Government Insurance Trust
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is important to distinguish between 'actual malice' and 'common law malice' "). With this framework in mind, we turn to the issues raised here. First, we address whether Maethner produced sufficient evidence of damages to survive summary judgment, including whether he may rely on presumed damages. Second, we address whether Someplace Safe had a duty to investigate the truthfulness of Jorud's statements before publishing the statements. Because this case comes to us on appeal from summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review to determine "whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law to the facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the district court did not make any findings on materiality”
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.