Connors v. Delaware & Hudson Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was error to admit evidence of republication, even for purposes of showing damages, because the defendant played no role in the republication
• holding that accusations of a misdemeanor in violation of New York General Municipal Law constitute defamation per se
• stating that damages will be presumed “for statements that charge a person with committing a serious crime or that would tend to cause injury to a person’s profession or business”
• “The obvious example [of republication foreseeability] is when a person makes a defamatory statement to a newspaper 20 reporter who, in turn, repeats it in a newspaper article[.]”
• “[E]ach person who repeats the defamatory statement is responsible for the resulting damages.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).