Legal Opinion
Sauerhoff v. Hearst Corporation
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided December 19, 1974No. Civ. 72-1189-KPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK A. KAUFMAN, District Judge.
In Casale v. Dooner Laboratories, Inc., 503 F.2d 303 n. 4, (4th Cir. 1973), Judge Craven noted, apparently with thankfulness, that in that case the Court
need not delve into the somewhat cloudy Maryland distinction between libel “per se” and “per quod.” See Murnaghan, From Figment to Fiction to Philosophy — The Requirement of Proof of Damages in Libel Actions, 22 Cath.U.L.Rev. 1 (1972).
In this case this Court is not in so comfortable a position. For herein the irrational animals known as libel “per quod” and libel “per se”, and the Merlinesque touchstones which…
2Cases cited35 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
- Reed v. ReedSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Frontiero v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lucado v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1978
- General Motors Corp. v. PiskorCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975
- Hillman v. Metromedia, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1978
- Holtzscheiter v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
- Holtzscheiter v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1998