Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• determination of substantial truth looks at whether the literal truth would have made a material difference
• “Slight inaccuracies will not prevent a statement from being true in substance, as long as the ‘gist’ or ‘sting’ of the publication is justified.”
• “Substantial truth is an absolute defense to a 28 1 defamation action in Arizona.”
• “Substantial truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action in Arizona. 2 Slight inaccuracies will not prevent a statement from being true in substance, as long as the 3 ‘gist’ or ‘sting’ of the publication is justified.”
• “Substantial truth 6 is an absolute defense to a defamation action in Arizona. Slight inaccuracies will not 7 prevent a statement from being true in substance, as long as the ‘gist’ or ‘sting’ of the 8 publication is justified.”
• “We conclude that the ‘sting’ of the two versions is not substantially different and therefore, had the published statements contained an accurate account 2 of the conviction and sentence, there would not have been any less damage to Read’s reputation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).