Lohrenz v. Donnelly

How courts have described this case

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

• “courts have generally disfavored expert testimony in determining actual malice, which is essentially a determination of defendants’ subjective state of mind”
• “[T]here is no duty to retract or correct a publication . . . .”
• “A motion to strike is not an appropriate vehicle through which to contest the credibility of a witness or to draw further attention to the fact that one piece of evidence is contradicted by another.”
• “A motion to strike is not an appropriate vehicle through which to contest the credibility of a witness or to draw further attention to the fact that one piece of evidence is contradicted by another.”
• \[T]here is no duty to retract or correct a publication ....\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).