Manning v. Barks

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that even if plaintiff could establish a defamatory meaning through innuendo that he was a poor lending risk, it could not be deemed defamatory because it was \unquestionably true\
• indicating that when a statement is defamatory per se, the defendant “is presumed to have acted with common law malice and the plaintiff is presumed to have suffered general damages” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• indicating that when a statement is defamatory per se, the defendant “is presumed to have acted with common law malice and the plaintiff is presumed to have suffered general damages” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding an absolute defense to defamation when the \literal meaning\ of the statement was true and \there [was] no evidence to the contrary\
• “One who publishes defamatory matter concerning another is not liable for the publication if (1) the matter is published upon an occasion that makes it conditionally privileged, and (2
• “One who publishes defamatory matter concerning another is not liable for the publication if (1) the matter is published upon an occasion that makes it conditionally privileged, and (2) the privilege is not abused.... An abuse of the privilege occurs in one of two situations: (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).