Tucker v. Uhl
Citations
- 2023 Ohio 3680
Syllabus
The trial court did not err by denying appellant's petition for a civil sexually oriented protection order against appellee where appellant failed to establish that a protection order was necessary to ensure appellant's safety and protection from appellee as there was nothing in the record to indicate another sexual encounter between appellant and appellee was possible given the record in this case, which included evidence to indicate appellant and appellee had agreed to meet for a consensual sexual encounter after exchanging messages over social media for just one hour.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that the court of appeals concluded that the jury's determination of falsity was not clearly erroneous
- recognizing that the court of appeals concluded that the jury’s determination of falsity was not clearly erroneous
- concluding that a motive to “gain[] a competitive advantage” is insufficient to prove actual malice
- holding that newspaper's motive to increase profits cannot support a finding of actual malice
- holding that reliance on single, unreliable source supported finding of purposeful avoidance
- noting that by the time Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. was decided, the Court unanimously agreed that the actual malice standard applied to public figures
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: S. Powell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.