Rush v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• characterizing the word \patronage\ as rhetorical hyperbole and not capable of supporting a defamation claim
• denying a motion to dismiss due to the appellant’s failure to file a reproduced record because its absence did not hamper review of the issues
• noting that when a trial court does not certify an order granting summary judgment in accordance with Pa. R.A.P. 341(c), “an appellant must wait to file his appeal until after an order disposing of all claims or all parties has been issued.”
• “there is no support for the proposition that negligence may support a claim of false light-invasion of privacy.”
• “A communication is also defamatory if it ascribes to another conduct, character or a condition that would adversely affect his fitness for the proper conduct of his proper business, trade or profession.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).