Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \an employer called upon to give information about a former employee should be protected so that he can give an accurate assessment of the employee's qualifications\
• noting that the plaintiff has the burden to prove that the privilege was abused by showing actual malice
• stating that “appellate courts tend to leave the amount to be awarded [on a defamation per se claim] to the jury’s discretion”
• finding that it was reasonable for a jury to find that the plaintiffs inability to find employment was caused by a supervisor’s poor recommendation
• stating that the New York Times standard “was fashioned as an exception to the common law rule to permit the ... media to perform their function ... without undue fear of defamation liability”
• finding that if defendant demonstrates the existence of a qualified privilege for a defamatory statement, the burden shifts to plaintiff to prove the privilege was abused, which is generally a question for the jury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).