Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

actual malice

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 379 U.S. 64 - Garrison v. State of Louisiana · 1964Most cited · 3,391 citing opinions

with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not

How the Supreme Court has restated “actual malice”

196419701971 most cited: 379 U.S. 64 - Garrison v. State of Louisiana (1964)
first statedrestated (same sense)evolveddeparted

Each Supreme Court definition of “actual malice,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.

How often courts cite the cases defining “actual malice”

19301940196019802000202020301.4k

Court decisions citing the 4 opinions that defined “actual malice” — 4,964 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.

All 4 definitions, chronological · 1964–1971

  1. 1965·380 U.S. 356 - Henry v. Collins[p7]· cited 307×

    The constitutional guarantees * * * (prohibit) a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made * * * with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

    public official defamation

  2. the Constitution forbids recovery of damages in a civil libel action by a public official, such as respondent, 'for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice"—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

  3. reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual malice.