Second Circuit· 11/20/1913
American Malting Co. v. Keitel
Citations
- 209 F. 351
- 126 C.C.A. 277
- 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1803
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Equity will not restrain by injunction the threatened publication of a libel, as such, however great the injury to property may be. This is the universal rule in the United States ....”
- “Equity will not restrain by injunction the threatened publication of a libel, as such, however great the injury to property may be. This is the universal rule in the United States . . . .”
- “The fact that the false statements may injure the plaintiff in his business or as to his property does not alone constitute a sufficient ground for the issuance of an injunction!;] [because] [t]he party wronged has an adequate remedy at law.”
- “In a country which has constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press and of trial by jury, courts of equity should be slow to assume that they possess a power to deal with the publication of libels that the High Court of Chancery in England disclaimed.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Rogers
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
55 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Black & Yates, Inc. v. Mahogany Ass'nThird Circuit· 1942-06-10· cited 181×
- Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. LemenCalifornia Supreme Court· 2007-04-26· cited 72×
- McCann v. New York Stock ExchangeSecond Circuit· 1935-12-09· cited 67×
- Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. DimitrovCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 2017-06-05· cited 67×
- Sunbeam Corp. v. Payless Drug StoresN.D. California· 1953-05-15· cited 40×
- Girl Scouts of the United States v. Personality Posters Mfg. Co.S.D. New York· 1969-10-09· cited 36×
- Federal Sugar Refining Co. v. United States Sugar Equalization Board, Inc.S.D. New York· 1920-06-24· cited 35×
- Fashion Two Twenty, Inc. v. SteinbergE.D. New York· 1971-10-29· cited 34×
- Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. v. Local 100, Hotel Employees And Restaurant Employees International UnionSecond Circuit· 2001-02-02· cited 31×
- Oil Conservation Engineering Co. v. Brooks Engineering Co.Sixth Circuit· 1931-10-08· cited 28×
- Metropolitan Opera Ass'n v. Local 100, Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International UnionSecond Circuit· 2001-02-02· cited 28×
- Davis v. RomneyE.D. Pennsylvania· 1972-05-10· cited 28×
- Hill v. Petrotech Resources Corp.Kentucky Supreme Court· 2010-10-21· cited 27×
- Gloria Parker v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.Second Circuit· 1963-08-05· cited 26×
- Bihari v. GrossS.D. New York· 2000-09-25· cited 26×
- Mazart v. StateNew York State Court of Claims· 1981-07-08· cited 24×
- Sunbeam Corporation v. Masters of Miami, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1955-07-22· cited 22×
- Kwass v. KerseyWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1954-03-16· cited 22×
- Sidney Blumenthal & Co. v. United StatesSecond Circuit· 1929-01-07· cited 22×
- SEC v. RomerilSecond Circuit· 2021-09-27· cited 22×
Cites
22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Beekman v. MarstersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1907-04-06· cited 96×
- Boston Diatite Co. v. Florence Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1873-11-15· cited 58×
- Boyson v. ThornCalifornia Supreme Court· 1893-06-12· cited 55×
- Emack v. KaneU.S. Circuit Court· 1888-02-27· cited 52×
- Adriance, Platt & Co. v. National Harrow Co.Second Circuit· 1903-02-25· cited 52×
- Jackson v. StanfieldIndiana Supreme Court· 1894-02-01· cited 50×
- Casey v. Cincinnati Typographical Union No. 3U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio· 1891-01-31· cited 41×
- Citizens' Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Montgomery Light & Water Power Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Alabama· 1909-07-22· cited 38×
- Chambers & Marshall v. BaldwinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1891-01-17· cited 35×
- Morgan v. AndrewsMichigan Supreme Court· 1895-11-05· cited 31×
- Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Mechanics' Clothing Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island· 1904-02-16· cited 25×
- Kidd v. HorryU.S. Circuit Court· 1886-10-09· cited 23×
- Baltimore Life Insurance v. GleisnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1902-05-05· cited 12×
- Vassar College v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co.W.D. Missouri· 1912-07-08· cited 12×
- Hartman v. John D. Park & Sons Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky· 1906-02-14· cited 12×
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. South Dakota Retail Merchants' & Hardware Dealers' Ass'nU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Dakota· 1907-02-01· cited 12×
- Van Buren v. Chenango County Mutual InsuranceNew York Supreme Court· 1852-08-03· cited 11×
- Wells & Richardson Co. v. AbrahamU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York· 1906-04-20· cited 11×
- Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. PlattU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois· 1906-01-19· cited 11×
- American Law Book Co. v. Edward Thompson Co.New York Supreme Court· 1903-09-15· cited 9×
Other cases named American Malting Co. v. Keitel
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.