Chafoulias v. Peterson

How courts have described this case

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

• noting plaintiff must be able to have an impact on the resolution of the controversy
• finding the public debate over whether law enforcement was properly investigating allegations of sexual harassment to be a public controversy
• identifying three factors as determinative of the limited-purpose-public-figure question: “(1) whether a public controversy existed; (2) whether the plaintiff played a meaningful role in the controversy; and (3
• finding plaintiff's responses to a public controversy elevated him to a limited public purpose figure as to the defendant reporting on the controversy, but not as to defendant that created the controversy
• “We 14 see no good reason why someone dragged into a controversy should be able to speak publicly only at the expense of foregoing a private person’s protection from defamation.” (quoting Foretich, 37 F.3d at 1564)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Chafoulias v. Peterson

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Chafoulias v. Peterson
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2002-04-30· cited 2×