Pope v. MOTEL 6

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that actual malice may be “proven by demonstrating that a statement is published ... with reckless disregard for its veracity”
• holding that “[a] defamation claim requires demonstrating . . . a false and defamatory statement of fact by the defendant concerning the plaintiff”
• holding that qualified immunity applies to statements to the police about suspected criminal activity, and the plaintiff must demonstrate that the statements were false SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0
• noting that to ignore the plain meaning of a statute \would be an impermissible judicial excursion into the legislature's domain\
• noting that to ignore the plain meaning of a statute “would be an impermissible judicial excursion into the legislature’s domain”
• noting that the Nevada 22 Supreme Court has “looked to the federal courts for guidance” when analyzing cases brought under Nevada’s anti-discrimination statutes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).