M.V.M., Inc.

16 Cited authorities

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal
497 U.S. 1 (1990) Cited 1,743 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statement that implies a false assertion of fact may be actionable even if it is couched as a statement of opinion
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union
466 U.S. 485 (1984) Cited 1,626 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the clear-error standard "does not inhibit an appellate court's power to correct errors of law, including ... a finding of fact that is predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of law"
St. Amant v. Thompson
390 U.S. 727 (1968) Cited 1,790 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that to show actual malice, plaintiff must show "high degree of awareness of probably falsity"
Garrison v. Louisiana
379 U.S. 64 (1964) Cited 1,470 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that Louisiana's criminal libel law was not “narrowly drawn” because it did not require a finding of “clear and present danger” and was not limited “to speech calculated to cause breaches of the peace”
Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. Scientific Comm
523 U.S. 1020 (1998) Cited 119 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding prejudicial the potential inclusion of evidence that would have "redrawn the boundaries of the case"
Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 556 (1978) Cited 196 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
Labor Board v. Electrical Workers
346 U.S. 464 (1953) Cited 125 times 41 Legal Analyses
Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute
Jolliff v. N.L.R.B
513 F.3d 600 (6th Cir. 2008) Cited 24 times
In Jolliff, we canvassed the tests and approaches of other circuits and created a framework for ascertaining whether a defamatory meaning can be gleaned from the allegedly defamatory statement.
Tradesmen Intern., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
275 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2002) Cited 21 times
Assuming union organizer's activity constituted "concerted activity" under 29 U.S.C. § 157 but holding it was not protected under statute

M.V.M., Inc.

16 Cited authorities

Holding that a statement that implies a false assertion of fact may be actionable even if it is couched as a statement of opinion

Holding that the clear-error standard "does not inhibit an appellate court's power to correct errors of law, including ... a finding of fact that is predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of law"

Holding that to show actual malice, plaintiff must show "high degree of awareness of probably falsity"

Holding that Louisiana's criminal libel law was not “narrowly drawn” because it did not require a finding of “clear and present danger” and was not limited “to speech calculated to cause breaches of the peace”

Finding prejudicial the potential inclusion of evidence that would have "redrawn the boundaries of the case"

Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute

In Jolliff, we canvassed the tests and approaches of other circuits and created a framework for ascertaining whether a defamatory meaning can be gleaned from the allegedly defamatory statement.

Assuming union organizer's activity constituted "concerted activity" under 29 U.S.C. § 157 but holding it was not protected under statute