Murray, v. Holnam, Inc. and Thomas Thornton, of Whom Holnam, Inc. Is

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that, although slander is actionable per se, the plaintiff must prove actual malice if the communication is privileged because a privileged communication is the exception to the rule that malice is presumed from statements that are actionable per se
• stating the existence of common law actual malice “is ordinarily for the jury to decide”
• \A mere insinuation is actionable as a positive assertion if it is false and malicious and its meaning is plain.\
• “A principal may be held liable for defamatory statements made by an agent acting within the scope of his employment or within the scope of his apparent authority.”
• \Summary judgment is appropriate when it is clear there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\
• \A communication is defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).