Legal Opinion

Rotkiewicz v. Sadowsky

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 20, 2000PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtIreland, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment in an action for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The issue presented in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, a police officer, is a “public official” for purposes of defamation claims, and is therefore required to prove that the defendant made defamatory statements with “actual malice.” See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-280 *749(1964). We conclude that the plaintiff was a public official and therefore, because the judge did not give an instruction on the “actual malice” standard of proof, we reverse and remand…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968

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

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Noonan v. Staples, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2009
  2. Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police OfficersCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2007
  4. HipSaver, Inc. v. KielMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2013
  5. Clifton v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005

45 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