Smith v. Danielczyk

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because “[t]he record does not indicate that the extraneous documents or averments were ‘excluded’ by the court ... we must assume that they were considered”
• noting that qualified privilege is “‘conditioned upon the absence of malice and is forfeited if it is abused’”
• stating that public officials must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant “either knew their statements were false or acted with reckless disregard of whether they were true or false”
• explaining that “unless the employee is found to have acted with actual malice, the plaintiff may not execute on a judgment recovered against the employee, but, rather, subject to certain limits, the local government is liable on the judgment” (internal citation omitted)
• privileging statements “required or permitted in the performance of [a public official’s] official duties”
• “[P]olice officers, from patrol officers to chiefs, are regarded for New York Times purposes as public officials.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).