Legal Opinion

Reesman v. Highfill

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 23, 1997No. 94C-11060; CA A92453PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.

Plaintiff appeals, assigning error to the entry of summary judgment against his claims for defamation and “false light” invasion of privacy. He asserts, particularly, that the trial court erred in concluding that defendants’ 1 statements were not capable of defamatory meaning; that plaintiff was a public figure; and that there was no triable issue of fact as to whether defendants acted with actual malice. We generally agree with plaintiff, except that we conclude that he failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence of actual malice with respect to certain aspects of his false light claim.…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Curtis Publishing Co. v. ButtsSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Time, Inc. v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. Time, Inc. v. FirestoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Reesman v. HighfillOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Muresan v. Philadelphia Romanian Pentecostal ChurchCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API