Esso Shipping Co. v. Compania de Maderas de Caibarien, S. A.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that recovery was barred as to another statement because \[w]e have already held ... that the [defendants] did not have actual malice in publishing their view\
• holding that where implication of challenged statement is same as implication of statements which, although possibly false, were not published with actual malice, challenged statement is nonactionable under subsidiary meaning doctrine
• “Our holding is thus limited to those cases in which statements allegedly made with knowing falsity or reckless disregard give rise to defamatory inferences that are only supportive of inferences that are not actionable.”
• “A combination of individual statements which in themselves may not be defamatory might lead the reader to draw an inference that is damaging to the plaintiff.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).