§Why CasetextPricing

Lindsay Lohan, Appellant,v.Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Brief

44 Cited authorities

  1. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

    376 U.S. 254 (1964)   Cited 6,908 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a public official or public figure can recover damages for defamation on a matter of public concern only if he proves that the speaker acted with actual malice

  2. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.

    564 U.S. 786 (2011)   Cited 487 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even if violent video games cause aggression, a state could not prohibit their sale to children

  3. United States v. Alvarez

    567 U.S. 709 (2012)   Cited 273 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the First Amendment prohibits prosecution for a false claim that the speaker held a congressional medal of honor

  4. Howell v. New York Post Co.

    81 N.Y.2d 115 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 1,427 times
    Holding that the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: " extreme and outrageous conduct; intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and severe emotional distress."

  5. Time, Inc. v. Hill

    385 U.S. 374 (1967)   Cited 713 times
    Holding constitutional a state law imposing civil liability for malicious false statements that invade a private individual's right of privacy

  6. Winters v. New York

    333 U.S. 507 (1948)   Cited 882 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a statute imposes criminal penalties, the standard of certainty involved in vagueness review is higher

  7. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.

    433 U.S. 562 (1977)   Cited 346 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding a state may privilege the press by exempting it from a right-of-publicity tort

  8. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson

    343 U.S. 495 (1952)   Cited 628 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that movies are a protected form of speech

  9. Rogers v. Grimaldi

    875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 370 times   108 Legal Analyses
    Holding that title of movie "Ginger and Fred" contained "expressive element" implicating First Amendment

  10. Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publishing

    94 N.Y.2d 436 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that no appropriation claim may lie where “plaintiff's photograph is used to illustrate a newsworthy article”