§Why CasetextPricing

Russell et al v. Krowne et al

REPLY to Response to 59 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Maryland Code Annotated, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Section 5-807 and Supporting Declaration with Exhibits

13 Cited authorities

  1. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

    376 U.S. 254 (1964)   Cited 6,944 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. Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.

    446 U.S. 740 (1980)   Cited 873 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Oklahoma rules concerning service of process must be applied by federal courts adjudicating a dispute based on Oklahoma law

  3. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York

    326 U.S. 99 (1945)   Cited 2,333 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case

  4. Gardner v. Martino

    563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 736 times
    Holding that Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute, which requires entry of a judgment of dismissal without prejudice, is applicable in federal court because it “does not directly conflict with the Federal Rules and Oregon's civil procedure rules”

  5. Barwick v. Celotex Corp.

    736 F.2d 946 (4th Cir. 1984)   Cited 925 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff's self-serving affidavit that contradicted his own prior testimony did not create a genuine issue of material fact

  6. Aids Counseling & Testing Centers v. Group W Television, Inc.

    903 F.2d 1000 (4th Cir. 1990)   Cited 312 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]llegations of defamation by an organization and its members are not interchangeable"

  7. Henry v. Lake Charles American Press

    566 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2009)   Cited 165 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that interlocutory appeal of denial of anti-SLAPP dismissal under Louisiana law permitted

  8. Rosenberg v. Helinski

    328 Md. 664 (Md. 1993)   Cited 88 times
    Affirming summary judgment where defendant established the fair reporting privilege and there was “no trace of malice”

  9. Neuralstem, Inc. v. Stemcells, Inc.

    Civil Action No. AW-08-CV-1173 (D. Md. Aug. 4, 2009)   Cited 3 times
    Applying California law to an unfair competition claim and other tort claims "since [the counter-plaintiff's] reputation suffered the most harm in that state."

  10. Buckley v. Directv, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION: 1:03-CV-484-MHS (N.D. Ga. Jun. 26, 2003)   Cited 8 times

    CIVIL ACTION: 1:03-CV-484-MHS June 26, 2003 ORDER MARVIN SHOOB, Senior District Judge This action is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion. Background The Court denies the parties' requests for oral argument. The Court grants the parties' requests that the Court take judicial notice of a Department of Justice press release and two recent court decisions in related cases. This action arises out of threats by a leading provider of

  11. Section 971 - Special motion to strike

    La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 971   Cited 147 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the Attorney General may act as a public prosecutor