Jewell v. NYP Holdings, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a statement is “substantially true” only if the statement “would not have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.”
• explaining that a statement is “substantially true” only if the 41 statement “would not have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.”
• finding that a statement that a plaintiff is a “sick puppy” is “so charged with rhetoric as to suggest that there is no basis in fact that could either support or disprove it and, accordingly, it amounts to non-actionable epithet”
• finding substantia! truth where defendant reported that plaintiff was the “prime suspect” and “main suspect” when he was just “a suspect”
• adopting “incremental harm” defense to defamation and observing that New York law “broadly recognize[s] a series of different privileges in defamation cases, some qualified, others absolute.”
• finding actionable the opinion that the plaintiff “liked the limelight” because the plaintiff had alleged that the factual basis disclosed in the same article, that the plaintiff “sought interviews with CNN, NBC and other news outlets,” was false

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).