Legal Opinion · Dissent

John Doe, No. 1 v. Hon Eddy Coleman Judge, Pike Circuit Court

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided September 22, 2016No. 2015-SC-000408-MRUnknown

1DissentCunningham, J.

I respectfully dissent.

• The majority presents an overly restrictive requirement that all defamation plaintiffs must satisfy in-order to receive the most basic discovery information—the identities of the alleged defamers. More precisely, I respectfully submit that the majority’s rigid interpretation of the element of falsity is misguided. In so holding, the majority fails to address all of the arguments raised by the anonymous defendants and also fails to address each necés-*756sary element of defamation. Because our culture is becoming increasingly saturated by malicious memes and other online…

2Cases cited12 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. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985

7 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