§Why CasetextPricing

Christopher J. Alf, Appellant,v.The Buffalo News, Inc., Respondent.

Brief

24 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 25,363 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

  2. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

    418 U.S. 323 (1974)   Cited 3,872 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a private defamation plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages without proving actual malice

  3. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal

    497 U.S. 1 (1990)   Cited 1,700 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statement of "opinion" reasonably implying false and defamatory facts is subject to same culpability requirements as statement of facts

  4. Gross v. New York Times Co.

    82 N.Y.2d 146 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 456 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding accusation of "possibly illegal" conduct to be actionable

  5. Armstrong v. Simon Schuster

    85 N.Y.2d 373 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 186 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant's accusation that plaintiff suborned perjury "transcends narrow doctrine" of the single instance rule

  6. Williams v. Williams

    23 N.Y.2d 592 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 380 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff's claim that an action was brought against him solely for the purpose of ruining his business reputation was insufficient to establish abuse of process

  7. Silsdorf v. Levine

    59 N.Y.2d 8 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 193 times
    Holding that accusations of "corruptness" in an open letter were not merely opinion because they purported to be factual

  8. Cholowsky v. Civiletti

    69 A.D.3d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 69 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing absolute fair report privilege for judicial proceedings

  9. Matovcik v. Times

    46 A.D.3d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 63 times
    Noting that, in determining the truth or falsity of a statement, “minor inaccuracies are acceptable”

  10. Daniel Goldreyer, Ltd. v. Van De Wetering

    217 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 83 times
    Holding that trial court should have dismissed as a matter of law a defamation claim directed to a statement in an art review that "does not have a precise meaning, cannot be objectively characterized as true or false, appears in an immediate context, the ‘Art’ section of defendant Time Magazine, where the average person would understand it as, or expect to find, expression of opinion or personal taste, and appears in a broader context of the public debate over the artistic merit of the restoration."