Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where the New York Times “clear and convincing evidence” requirement applies, the summary judgment inquiry will be whether the evidence presented is such that a jury applying that evidentiary standard could reasonably find for either plaintiff or defendant
• noting that the failure to investigate \provides some evidence of actual malice\
• explaining that a person does not become a public figure merely by “doing business with the government, being swept up in a controversy over an issue of public interest or concern, [and] being named in articles creating a public controversy”
• noting, “An individual may become a public figure if he ‘thrust[s] himself or his views into public controversy to influence others.’”
• opting to consider the public figure doctrine in an appeal by a defendant from a plaintiff's verdict in a defamation case even though that doctrine was not argued in defendant’s appellate filings — although it had been raised and argued in the trial court
• request for retraction coupled with specific facts to rebut inaccuracy, if ignored, may indicate actual malice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).