Legal Opinion
Bukky v. Painesville Telegraph & Lake Geauga Printing Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 10, 1981No. 80-1596PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtClifford F. Brown, J.
The issue herein is the quantum of evidence that a public official as plaintiff in a libel action must produce in order to withstand defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
The standard in this area of the law has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, (1964), 376 U. S. 254; St. Amant v. Thompson (1968), 390 U. S. 727; and by this court in Dupler v. Mansfield Journal (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 116, paragraph two of the syllabus, as follows:
“In considering defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a libel action brought by a public official, if the…
2Cases cited11 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
- St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Garrison v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Perez v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- Varanese v. GallOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Deoma v. Shaker HeightsOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
- Paramount Supply Co. v. Sherlin Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1984
- Stepien v. FranklinOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.