41 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 260,142 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 273,590 times 368 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal
497 U.S. 1 (1990) Cited 1,730 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statement that implies a false assertion of fact may be actionable even if it is couched as a statement of opinion
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
485 U.S. 46 (1988) Cited 799 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that “public figures and public officials” must prove “actual malice” in addition to falsity before recovering for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the basis of speech directed at them
Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc.
187 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999) Cited 1,301 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a court, when considering a motion to dismiss in a securities fraud case, may take judicial notice . . . of relevant public documents required to be filed with the SEC”
Letter Carriers v. Austin
418 U.S. 264 (1974) Cited 608 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union newsletter's description of a “scab” as a “traitor” could not be construed as a factual assertion
Greenbelt Pub. Assn. v. Bresler
398 U.S. 6 (1970) Cited 660 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that use of the word "blackmail" to describe plaintiff's negotiating position could not be understood as a statement of fact
Horsley v. Rivera
292 F.3d 695 (11th Cir. 2002) Cited 171 times
Holding non-literal, figurative language not defamatory
Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp.
97 Cal.App.4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 167 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he phrase big skank is not actionable because it is too vague to be capable of being proven true or false" and "the term skank constitutes rhetorical hyperbole which no listener could reasonably have interpreted to be a statement of actual fact"
New Times, Inc. v. Isaacks
146 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. 2004) Cited 127 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding proof of actual malice requires proof that defendant made statement knowing statement was false or with reckless disregard of truth or falsity of statement
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 160,289 times 196 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 51-5-1 - Libel defined; publication prerequisite to recovery
Ga. Code § 51-5-1 Cited 165 times 1 Legal Analyses
Defining libel as "a false and malicious defamation of another, expressed in print, writing, pictures, or signs, tending to injure the reputation of the person and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule"

Pierce v. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc

41 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding that a statement that implies a false assertion of fact may be actionable even if it is couched as a statement of opinion

Holding that “public figures and public officials” must prove “actual malice” in addition to falsity before recovering for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the basis of speech directed at them

Holding that “a court, when considering a motion to dismiss in a securities fraud case, may take judicial notice . . . of relevant public documents required to be filed with the SEC”

Holding that a union newsletter's description of a “scab” as a “traitor” could not be construed as a factual assertion

Holding that use of the word "blackmail" to describe plaintiff's negotiating position could not be understood as a statement of fact

Holding non-literal, figurative language not defamatory

Holding that "[t]he phrase big skank is not actionable because it is too vague to be capable of being proven true or false" and "the term skank constitutes rhetorical hyperbole which no listener could reasonably have interpreted to be a statement of actual fact"

Holding proof of actual malice requires proof that defendant made statement knowing statement was false or with reckless disregard of truth or falsity of statement

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Defining libel as "a false and malicious defamation of another, expressed in print, writing, pictures, or signs, tending to injure the reputation of the person and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule"