Skip to main content
Utah Supreme Court· 3/22/1994

West v. Thomson Newspapers

Citations

  • 872 P.2d 999
  • 23 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1097
  • 235 Utah Adv. Rep. 3
  • 1994 Utah LEXIS 19
  • 1994 WL 99453

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that constitutional provisions should be read in a manner that is consistent with similar constitutional provisions
  • explaining that “when [an] opinion states or implies facts that are false and defamatory,” the opinion “protection is ‘abused’”
  • stating that readers expect exaggerated commentary and criticism of public officials in editorial articles “and are therefore less likely to rely on [such articles] in forming their opinions”
  • explaining that “Recording to the primacy approach, a state court looks first to state constitutional law, develops independent doctrine and precedent, and decides federal questions only when state law is not dispositive” (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • considering whether statements were defamatory under Utah law and explicitly not reaching any question of whether the civil libel statute is constitutional
  • considering whether statements were defamatory under Utah law and explicitly not reaching any question of whether the civil libel statute is constitutional

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Durham, Zimmerman, Stewart, Hall, Howe

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

70 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

94 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named West v. Thomson Newspapers

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced 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.