Agriss v. Roadway Express, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that statement that employee “opened company mail” was capable of defamatory meaning because it implied that he committed a crime
• holding that plaintiffs in libel need not prove special damages
• defining general actual damages as “any injury done to [plaintiffs] reputation and for any other injury of which libel is the legal cause”
• finding statement published to employee’s supervisor and co-workers concerning plaintiffs opening of company mail to be defamatory because it implied plaintiff had committed a crime
• noting “Pennsylvania’s general tendency to follow the Restatement rule in defamation law.”
• statement published to employee’s supervisor and co-workers concerning plaintiffs opening of company mail was defamatory because it implied plaintiff had committed a crime

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).