People v. Rigby

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing fact from opinion requires consideration of \whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood or whether it is indefinite and ambiguous\
• distinguishing fact from opinion requires consideration of “whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood or whether it is indefinite and ambiguous”
• “We eschew any attempt here to reduce the problem of distinguishing fact from opinion to a rigid set of criteria which can be universally applied.”
• “It is a settled rule that expressions of an opinion false or not, libelous or not, are constitution ally protected and may not be the subject of private damage actions.”
• statements of mixed opinion are actionable because of “the implication that the speaker knows certain facts, unknown to [her] audience, which support his opinion and are detrimental to the person about whom he is speaking”
• statements of mixed opinion are actionable because of “the implication that the speaker knows certain facts, unknown to [her] audience, which support his opinion and are detrimental to the person about whom he is speaking”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).