Faigin v. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2020
4 district · 4 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Collins v. City of Harker Heights
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One who publishes a defamatory statement of fact is not subject to liability for defamation if the statement is true. In the law of defamation, truth is defined as substantial truth, as it is not necessary that every detail be accurate. In other words, literal truth of a statement is not required so long as the imputation is substantially true so as to justify the gist or sting of the remark. Furthermore, a false and defamatory inference may be derived from a factually accurate news report.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, the standard strikes the most appropriate balance between the state’s interest in protecting reputation and the ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open .... Although calculated falsehoods remain outside the core of the First Amendment, erroneous misstatements are inevitable in a robust system of free expression.’ Second, public figures assume the risk of defamatory statements leveled against them because by ‘thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies ... they invite attention and comment.’ Lastly, public figures more readily may resort to self-help, minimizing the need for judicial protection against defamation. ‘Public figures usually enjoy significantly greater access to the channels of effective communication and hence have a more realistic opportunity to counteract false statements than private individuals normally enjoy.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) successfully invited public attention to his views in an effort to influence others prior to the incident that is the subject of litigation; (2) voluntarily injected himself into a public controversy related to the subject of the litigation; (3) assumed a position of prominence in the public controversy; and (4) maintained regular and continuing access to the media.”
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.