Gannett Co., Inc. v. Anderson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a claim for false light was specifically brought to \circumvent the shorter limitations period that applies to defamation actions\ and that it should be treated the same as defamation or the \strict requirements in the law of defamation would have no effect at all\
• plaintiff could not avoid defamation statute of limitations by amending claim from describing publication as “false and defamatory” to one “worded in such a way to portray the plaintiff in a false light.” (alteration adopted; quotation marks omitted)
• “To the extent that false light invasion of privacy overlaps defamation, it must be treated the same way. Otherwise, the relatively short statute of limitations and other strict requirements in the law of defamation would have no effect at all.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).