Legal Opinion

Niehoff v. Sahagian

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided January 14, 1954PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMerrill, C. J.

On exceptions. This is an action for slander. The amended declaration contains two counts. The first count alleges that the defendant slandered the plaintiff by falsely and maliciously accusing him of the crime of subornation of perjury by speaking of and concerning the plaintiff the following words:

“I had not wanted to admit on the stand in Portland, that I had committed a crime, since I had not committed any. However, I was urged to do so by Bird and Assistant Attorney General William H. Niehoff. Bird and Niehoff told me that if I did not testify to a crime, then no crime could be proved…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Brettun v. AnthonyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  2. Pattangall v. MooersSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1915
  3. True v. PlumleySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1853
  4. Barnes v. TrundySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1850
  5. Chapman v. GannettSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1934

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Cohen v. BowdoinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1972
  2. Garren v. Southland CorporationSupreme Court of Georgia · 1976
  3. Riley v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. Cross v. Guy Gannett Publishing Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1956
  5. Springer v. SeamanDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1987

5 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