Legal Opinion
McNally v. Yarnall
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 8, 1991No. 90 Civ. 3076 (RWS)PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendant the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the “Museum”) has moved pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., for summary judgment of the claims brought against it by Sean and Janet McNally (the “McNallys”) in their defamation action against the Museum and James Yarnall (“Yarnall”). For the reasons set forth below, the Museum’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The Parties
The McNallys are residents of the State of New Jersey, and, for the past fourteen years, have been engaged in the purchase and sale of the works of the artist John La Farge (“La Farge”).…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. FalwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. HeppsSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Paula A. Konikoff v. The Prudential Insurance Company of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Biro v. Condé NastDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
- McNally v. YarnallDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1997
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.