Collins v. Crews

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that terms “sucker,” “fool,” “frontman,” “industrial waste,” “pilot . . . of the ship of doom,” and “crooks or morons” were hyperbole and nonactionable opinion
• explaining that “sucker, fool, frontman, industrial waste, pilot of the ship of doom, and crooks or morons” were “insult[s]” and “not actionable opinion” (cleaned up)
• affirming dismissal where statement “could have produced no worse an effect on the mind of the reader than the truth”
• affirming district court's dismissal of libel claims and finding statements that plaintiffs, financial traders, made \bets\ and \fear[ed] ... that the U.S. economy would strengthen\ as \substantially true\ because \bets are the nature of much of the financial market\
• “[T]he epithets ... ‘sucker,’ ‘fool,’ ‘frontman,’ ‘industrial waste,’ ... and ‘crooks or morons’ ... are hyperbole and therefore not actionable opinion.”
• “The parties’ briefs assume that New York law controls, and such implied consent is sufficient to establish choice of law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).