Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc. v. Wilner

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “‘[a] statement of opinion is actionable only if it has an explicit or implicit factual foundation and is therefore objectively verifiable.’” (quoting Washington v. Smith, 80 F.3d 555, 556 (D.C. Cir. 1996
• “[Rjeversal is not warranted where ... the appellate court agrees on the merits with the second judge’s analysis.”
• A statement is not actionable \if it is plain that a speaker is expressing a subjective view ... rather than claiming to be in possession of objectively verifiable facts.\
• “The language must not only be reasonably read to 9 impart the false innuendo, but it must also affirmatively suggest that the author intends or endorses the inference.”
• A statement is not actionable “if it is plain that a speaker is expressing a subjective view . . . rather than claiming to be in possession of objectively verifiable facts.”
• “[I]f it is plain that a speaker is expressing a subjective view, an interpretation, a theory, conjecture, or surmise, rather than claiming to be in possession of objectively verifiable facts, the statement is not actionable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).