State of Tennessee v. Felicia Annette Mitchell

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the court of appeals had correctly considered the newspaper defendant’s twenty articles together, rather than as separate and distinct publications, for purposes of determining the existence of a defamatory meaning
• holding that “[t]he court of appeals could not make a proper 6 assessment of the alleged defamatory material in this case without looking at the ‘surrounding circumstances’ encapsulated in this series” of articles
• noting that appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and certain interlocutory orders made appealable by statute
• noting that when both parties presented summary-judgment evidence on a hybrid motion, the varying burdens for the different types of motions are immaterial
• explaining that the privilege does not apply when the “gist” of the article was that the allegations were true, not merely repeating the accusations of others
• observing that, when both traditional and no-evidence summary judgment grounds are raised and both parties present evidence, the “differing burdens are immaterial and the ultimate issue is whether a fact issue exists”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).