Skip to main content
Second Circuit· 1/15/1986

Herbert v. Lando

Citations

  • 781 F.2d 298
  • 12 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1593

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that recovery was barred as to another statement because \[w]e have already held ... that the [defendants] did not have actual malice in publishing their view\
  • holding that where implication of challenged statement is same as implication of statements which, although possibly false, were not published with actual malice, challenged statement is nonactionable under subsidiary meaning doctrine
  • “Our holding is thus limited to those cases in which statements allegedly made with knowing falsity or reckless disregard give rise to defamatory inferences that are only supportive of inferences that are not actionable.”
  • “A combination of individual statements which in themselves may not be defamatory might lead the reader to draw an inference that is damaging to the plaintiff.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kaufman, Newman, Timbers

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

43 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.