Legal Opinion

Bartlett v. Bradford Publishing, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 17, 2005PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

JOHNSON, J.:

¶ 1 In this case, we consider whether Appellant, Heil Bartlett, a public figure, can satisfy the actual malice standard in a defamation suit by alleging that Appellees, Bradford Publishing, Inc. d/b/a The Bradford Era, John Satterwhite, Marty Wilder and Anne Holliday (collectively “The Bradford Era”), engaged in sub-standard reporting and investigative practices. The trial court found that Bartlett failed to produce evidence that The Bradford Era acted with actual malice and entered summary judgment in its favor. On appeal, Bartlett contends that the trial court erred…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. ConnaughtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Gutteridge v. A.P. Green Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Lineberger v. WyethSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Chenot v. A.P. Green Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. DeArmitt v. New York Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  4. Brian McCafferty v. Newsweek Media Group LtdCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2020
  5. National Casualty Co. v. KinneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API