Havalunch, Inc. v. Mazza

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 humorous restaurant review was protected by the doctrine of fair comment
• concluding that a humorous restaurant review was protected by the doctrine of fair comment
• noting that, since the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), there has been a “free speech gloss” put on defamation law
• providing some general discussion of the all-purpose public figure and limited purpose public figure categories
• providing some general discussion of the all-purpose public figure and limited purpose public figure categories
• in defamation case, looking for guidance to Restatement as opposed to “old West Virginia defamation cases” that were not “directly on ... point”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).