Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 819 P.2d 939.

35 citing documents.

MALONEY v. DEMOFF Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
AUTO JUNCTION v. KALUZHIN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
AUTO JUNCTION v. KALUZHIN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
4 AUTO JUNCTION v. KALUZHIN, et al. Decision of the Court ¶10 This Court reviews summary judgment de novo and upholds it “when no genuine issue of material fact exists.” Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Hoenack v. Gannett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Hoenack v. Gannett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Newspapers, Inc., (citation omitted).
Towers v. Bentz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Towers v. Bentz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
[a] statement is a complete defense.’”) (quoting Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., ).
McCoy v. Hassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McCoy v. Hassen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Courts serve this gatekeeper function because “the expense of defending a meritless defamation case could have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights.” Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (citations omitted); accord BLK III, -88, ¶ 11 (App. 2022).
Blk III, LLC v. Skelton 506 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Blk III, LLC v. Skelton 506 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Nonetheless, because “the expense of defending a meritless defamation case” can have “a chilling effect on First Amendment rights,” Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., “the superior court must act as [a] gatekeeper protecting the right to free speech” from encroachment.
Takieh M.D. v. O'Meara M.D. 497 P.3d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Takieh M.D. v. O'Meara M.D. 497 P.3d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Nonetheless, because “the expense of defending a meritless defamation case” can have “a chilling effect on First Amendment rights,” Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., “the superior court must act as gatekeeper protecting the right to free speech” from encroachment.
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tarter v. Bendt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
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
This requirement “is rooted in the notion that the expense of defending a meritless defamation case could have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights.” Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
True North v. Lai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
True North v. Lai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
John Doe v. Mahoney 418 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
John Doe v. Mahoney 418 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. , , 355, , 941 (1991).
Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶14 To defeat a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a defamation case, the plaintiff must present evidence “sufficient to establish a prima facie case with convincing clarity.” Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., –57 (1991) (emphasis added).
Kahn v. Arizona Cvs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kahn v. Arizona Cvs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Newspapers, Inc., (citation omitted).
Phonejockey v. Rinella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Phonejockey v. Rinella Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Pinal County v. Cooper 360 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Pinal County v. Cooper 360 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Alexander v. Bill Lukie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Alexander v. Bill Lukie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Newspapers, Inc., (internal citations omitted).
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“Substantial truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action in Arizona.” Read v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Currier v. Western Newspapers, Inc. 855 P.2d 1351 Ariz. 1993
Currier v. Western Newspapers, Inc. 855 P.2d 1351 Ariz. 1993