Gottschalk v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the court may not “step [] over the line of interpretation and engag[e] in legislation”
• explaining that the language of the statute -- prohibiting \defamatory\ or \scandalous\ speech -- is vague
• declining to save overbroad statute \because in doing so we would be stepping over the line of interpretation and engaging in legislation\
• to imply into statute what is not apparent on its face \would be stepping over the line of interpretation and engaging in legislation\
• to imply into statute what is not apparent on its face \would be stepping over the line of interpretation and engaging in legislation\
• statute failed to treat truth as an absolute defense and failed to incorporate “actual malice” standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).