Legal Opinion

Nadel v. Regents of University of California

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 30, 1994No. A063549PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KING, J.

I. Introduction

In this case we hold that the standard of malice set forth in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254 [11 L.Ed.2d 686, 84 S.Ct. 710, 95 A.L.R.2d 1412], requiring a public official or public figure to prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth in order to establish a news media defendant’s liability for defamation, also applies to defamation actions against government defendants.

David Nadel and Carol Ruth Denney appeal from a defense judgment in their defamation action against The Regents of the University of California and four…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Connick Ex Rel. Parish of Orleans v. MyersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  5. St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. La Liberte v. ReidCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2020
  2. Bradbury v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  3. Copp v. PaxtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  4. Carver v. BondsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  5. Schroeder v. Irvine City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002

13 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