Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Scottsdale Publishing, Inc. v. Superior Court, 764 P.2d 1131.

26 citing documents.

Gitman v. Simpson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Gitman v. Simpson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Although actual malice can be inferred from objective facts, Scottsdale Publ’g, the timing of the Stern Facts article does not support such an inference.
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
see also Scottsdale Publ'g, n.7 (App. 1988) (discussing correlation between "actual malice" required to prove defamation and "evil mind" necessary to obtain punitive damages in a tort action).
Rogers v. Hon Mroz 479 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rogers v. Hon Mroz 479 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
but we may accept jurisdiction “when a suit raises serious First Amendment concerns,” threatens to chill protected speech and may be resolved as a matter of law, Citizen Publ’g ¶¶ 8-9 (2005).
Rodriguez v. Fox News Network, L.L.C. 356 P.3d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rodriguez v. Fox News Network, L.L.C. 356 P.3d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Citizen Publishing Co. v. Miller 115 P.3d 107 Ariz. 2005
Citizen Publishing Co. v. Miller 115 P.3d 107 Ariz. 2005
In Scottsdale Publishing, Inc. v. Superior Court (Romano), the court of appeals made an “exception” to its usual reluctance to review a denial of summary judgment by special action because of “the public’s significant first amendment interest in protecting the press from the chill of meritless libel actions.” 159 Ariz. 72, 74
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 885 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 885 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Scottsdale Publishing, Inc., v. Superior Court
Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 812 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Heuisler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 812 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
1 In the course of our discussion, we also examine Heuisler’s contention that the trial court’s decision is inconsistent with case law governing the granting of summary judgment and with this court’s decision in Scottsdale Publishing
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
See Scottsdale Publishing, , 83 n. 8, , 1142 n. 8 (Ct.App.1988) (citing Dombey, 150 Ariz. at 490 , 724 P.2d at 576 ); United Bank v. Allyn, supra.
Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 805 P.2d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 805 P.2d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
For the stake, here, if harassment succeeds, is free debate.”); Scottsdale Publishing, , (“By taking jurisdiction ...
Henke v. Superior Court 775 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Henke v. Superior Court 775 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
United States v. *99 Superior Court
Morris v. Warner 770 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Morris v. Warner 770 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
2d 789, 807 (1974); Scottsdale Publishing