Legal Opinion
Varanese v. Gall
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 3, 1988No. 87-636PublishedCited by 57 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
The instant appeal poses a single question: Did appellee present evidence sufficient to withstand appellant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of actual malice? For the following reasons, we hold that she did not.
The parties to this appeal do not dispute appellee’s status as a public official. As such, appellee bears the burden of proving, with convincing clarity, that appellant published the advertisement at issue with actual malice. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254; Bukky v. Printing Co. (1981), 68 Ohio St. 2d 45, 22 O.O. 3d 183, 428 N.E. 2d 405, syllabus. Our…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Casso v. BrandTexas Supreme Court · 1989
- Jacobs v. FrankOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Calmes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
- William Gordon Brooks v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. Geraldo Rivera Charles C. Thompson and Maravilla Production, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.