In re Andrew M.

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 protected only if: (1) it could not reasonably be interpreted as stating actual fact; or (2) it is not provable as false
• holding that jury should determine whether ambiguous statements are fact or opinion
• stating that defamation case may proceed to the jury “only where there are truly two tenable views” of the statement at issue
• noting that statements are not actionable “[i]f interpreted as nothing more than rhetorical political invective”
• acknowledging considerable body of federal law, emanating from Gertz dictum, “holding that the expression of opinion is absolutely privileged under the first amendment”
• explaining that “assertions [that] employ ‘loose, 8 figurative or hyperbolic language’ . . . cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating or 9 implying actual facts” (quoting Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1, 21 (1990)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).