Cox v. Hatch

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 could not be determined from pleadings alone that plaintiffs were public officials or figures
• holding that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a “common workplace where there were a number of other people”
• stating that the First Amendment favors “disposing of [defamation] cases on motion and at an early stage when it appears that a reasonable jury could not find for the plaintiffs”
• stating that a defamatory communication is one that “impeachfes] an individual’s honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or publish[es] his or her natural defects or expose[s] him or her to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule”
• determining that photograph did not invade plaintiff privacy where it “was taken in an open place and in a common workplace where there were a number of other people”
• noting distinction between common law malice and \actual malice\ as defined in New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. at 725-26

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).