Legal Opinion
Milo v. Martin
Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
Decided April 29, 2010No. 09-09-00145-CVPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HOLLIS HORTON, Justice.
We are asked to consider whether the trial court erred in granting the appellees’ no-evidence motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Background
Plaintiffs, Walter Milo and Anthony Shelton, sued Guy Martin, Sandy Martin, Bill Cochran, Jr., and Melvin Douglas (collectively referred to as “The Watchdog”) for actual and punitive damages related to The Watchdog’s alleged publication on its website of several comments that Milo and Shelton contend were defamatory.1 The derogatory comments that Milo and Shel*212ton complain about were posted by anonymous2 users to a portion…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Ford Motor Co. v. RidgwayTexas Supreme Court · 2004
- Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1983
- MacK Trucks, Inc. v. TamezTexas Supreme Court · 2006
- English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- State v. ShumakeTexas Supreme Court · 2006
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Main v. Royall, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2011
- Christopher Hoskins v. Perry FuchsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2016
- Christopher Hoskins v. Perry FuchsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2016
- John Doe v. Melissa Smith and Jose Garcia, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2022
- Milo v. Martin, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2010