Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Time, Inc. Vs. Firestone

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 02, 1976

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

68 entries 13 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. Boddie Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1971
  2. Gallegos Vs. Nebraska US Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1951
  3. St. Amant Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1968
  4. Craig Vs. Harney US Supreme Court · May 19, 1947
    Distinguished
  5. Sheppard Vs. Maxwell US Supreme Court · Jun 06, 1966
  6. Bridges Vs. California US Supreme Court · Dec 08, 1941
  7. Pennekamp Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1946
  8. Rosenblatt Vs. Baer US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1966
  9. New York Times Co. Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1964
    Relied / Followed
  10. Rosenbloom Vs. Metromedia US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1971
  11. Cox Broadcasting Corp. Vs. Cohn US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1975
  12. Time, Inc. Vs. Pape US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1971
  13. Monitor Patriot Co. Vs. Roy US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1971
  14. U.S. 448 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Time, Inc. v. Firestone
    Search
  15. U.S. 448 (1976) Time, Inc. v. Firestone
    Search
  16. The standard enunciated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
    Search
  17. Gertz v. Robert
    Search
  18. as that term is defined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
    Search
  19. extending New York Times to defamation suits brought by such individuals, see, e.g., Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
    Search
  20. standard even if the story is proved to be defamatorily false or inaccurate. We reject both arguments. In Gertz v. Robert
    Search
  21. Were we to accept this reasoning, we would reinstate the doctrine advanced in the plurality opinion in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia
    Search
  22. of truthful information contained in official court records open to public inspection. Cox Broadcasting Corp v. Cohn
    Search
  23. in an uninhibited press and its equally compelling need for judicial redress of libelous utterances. Cf. Chaplinsky v. New
    Search
  24. Rosenblatt v. Baer
    Search
  25. U. S. 459 because the record contained sufficient evidence to establish the ground of extreme cruelty. Firestone v. Firestone
    Search
  26. We have no warrant for reexamining this determination. Cf. Lincoln v. Power
    Search
  27. is clear and convincing evidence of the negligence in certain segments of the news media in gathering the news. Gertz v. Welch
    Search
  28. we normally accord findings of state courts deference in reviewing constitutional claims here. See, e.g., Lyons v. Oklahoma
    Search
  29. fault, we are not inclined to canvass the record to make such a determination in the first instance. Cf. Rosenblatt v. Baer
    Search
  30. which to thrust herself to the forefront of some unrelated controversy in order to influence its resolution. See Gertz v. Robert
    Search
  31. that a rational interpretation of an ambiguous document is constitutionally protected under our decision in Time, Inc. v. Pape
    Search
  32. with whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART joins, concurring. A clear majority of the Court adheres to the principles of Gertz v. Robert
    Search
  33. Id. at 418 U. S. 348 , quoting Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
    Search
  34. a factor that may be considered in assessing whether there was actionable fault by Time under Gertz. Cf. Cantrell v. Forest
    Search
  35. the results of a public judicial proceeding. I In a series of cases beginning with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
    Search
  36. necessary to a civilized society, Rosenblatt v. Baer
    Search
  37. is no part of the expression protected by the central meaning of the First Amendment, Garrison v. Louisiana
    Search
  38. Page 424 U. S. 473 Identical considerations led the Court last Term, in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
    Search
  39. from inadvertent error in reporting such proceedings. II It is true, of course, that the Court in Gertz v. Robert
    Search
  40. of application of the New York Times privilege as it had evolved through the plurality opinion in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia
    Search
  41. n defamation actions, absent actual malice as defined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
    Search
  42. U.S. at 331 U. S. 375 . See also Pennekamp v. Florida
    Search
  43. Meiklejohn, Public Speech in the Supreme Court Since New York Times v. Sullivan
    Search
  44. of a public official, Garrison v. Louisiana
    Search
  45. U. S. 64 , 379 U. S. 77 (1964), or a candidate for public office, Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy
    Search
  46. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
    Search
  47. Amendment values at stake, of more serious concern than an erroneous judgment in the opposite direction, Rosenbloom v. Metromedia
    Search
  48. as to their truth. St. Amant v. Thompson
    Search
  49. Eaton, The American Law of Defamation through Gertz v. Robert
    Search
  50. Cf. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial