Gans v. Gans

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that defamation per quod claims would fail to the extent statements were found to be opinion under defamation per se analysis
• statement “bolster[ed] rather than defame[d] his reputation” because it suggested that “the jury found reason to discredit Jane Doe’s claims and therefore acquitted Huon of the charges”
• “In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court may consider . . . additional facts . . . in the plaintiff’s response to the motion . . . as long as those additional facts are consistent with the allegations in the complaint[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).