Kumaran v. Brotman

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 newspaper article suggesting the plaintiff was “working a scam” by filing “frequent, unwarranted lawsuits to procure pecuniary settlements” was not an opinion and thus actionable
• holding that a newspaper article accusing a school-teacher of filing “scam” lawsuits was defamatory per se because part of a teacher’s job is to set a good example and serve as a role model for students
• holding that a newspaper article suggesting the plaintiff was Aworking a scam@ by filing Afrequent, unwarranted lawsuits to procure pecuniary settlements@ was not an opinion and thus actionable
• holding that a newspaper article accusing a school-teacher of filing “scam” lawsuits was defamatory per se because, as a role model for students, the teacher’s job duties included personal integrity
• holding that a newspaper article accusing a teacher of filing \scam\ lawsuits was defamatory per se because part of a teacher's job is to set a good example and serve as a role model for her students
• holding that a newspaper article accusing a teacher of filing “scam” lawsuits was defamatory per se because part of a teacher’s job is to set a good example and serve as a role model for her students

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).