Dubinsky v. United Airlines Master Executive Council

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “statement that [the plaintiff] was a ‘crook’ was not actionable because it was not made in any specific factual context”
• holding that the general statement that the plaintiff was a “crook,” “in the absence of factual context, is a statement of opinion, not objectively verifiable and devoid of factual content”
• “expressions of opinion may often imply an assertion of objective fact and, in such cases, would be considered actionable”
• false light plaintiff must allege false statement; strong language critical of the plaintiff is insufficient to support a false light cause of action
• “[T]his general statement, in the absence of factual context, is a statement of opinion, not objectively verifiable and devoid of factual content.”
• “statement that [the plaintiff] was a ‘crook’ was not actionable because it was not made in any specific factual context.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).