William Armstrong v. Karen Thompson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statements suggesting the plaintiff had engaged in “serious integrity violations” and other “serious issues of misconduct” were unverifiable opinions
• holding that the defendant’s “mailing a handful of letters to a handful of employees at a single agency” was insufficient, and a “much broader dissemination” would be required to satisfy the “publicity” requirement for a false light claim
• explaining that “the ‘publicity’ requirement for a publication of private facts claim is the same for all invasion of privacy torts”
• explaining that a defamation claim must include sufficient facts to prove that the challenged statements are not “substantially true”
• dismissing a false light claim after finding the communications “were not defamatory as a matter of law” and consequently they “fail[ed] to meet the requirement that they be about a false statement, representation, or imputation”
• false light and publication of private facts (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).