Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “the tort of false light did not exist at common law”
• recognizing that although a literally true statement could create a false impression and thus be actionable, as a long as the statement is “substantially true,” it cannot support a claim for defamation
• explaining that liability attaches to a defendant who has the details right but the “gist” wrong
• recognizing a cause of action for “defamation by implication” where “literally true statements are conveyed in such a way as to create a false impression”
• explaining that defamation by implication is “the concept that literally true statements can be defamatory where they create a false impression”
• clarifying that Florida law does not recognize the tort of false light in the public eye

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).