Dugan v. Mittal Steel USA Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting plaintiff's attempts to equate \core exchange\ with \theft\ as a means to state claim for defamation per se
• reviewing court must analyze the trial court’s basis for judgment based on the facts most favorable to the non-movant
• “[I]f the words used are not defamatory in themselves, but become so only when understood in the context of 22 No. 12-1855 extrinsic evidence, they are considered defamatory per quod.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).