what where the facts in the case Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.?
106544
No. 89-645 \nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES \n497 U.S. 1 \nArgued April 24, 1990 \nDecided June 21, 1990 \n \nSyllabus\nWhile petitioner Milkovich was a high school wrestling coach, his team was involved in an altercation at a match with another high school's team. Both he and School Superintendent Scott testified at an investigatory hearing before the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA), which placed the team on probation. They testified again during a suit by several parents, in which a county court overturned OHSAA's ruling. The day after the court's decision, respondent Lorain Journal Company's newspaper published a column authored by respondent Diadiun, which implied that Milkovich lied under oath in the judicial proceeding. Milkovich commenced a defamation action against respondents in the county court, alleging that the column accused him of committing the crime of perjury, damaged him in his occupation of teacher and coach, and constituted libel per se. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment for respondents. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, considering itself bound by the State Supreme Court's determination in Superintendent Scott's separate action against respondents that, as a matter of law, the article was constitutionally protected opinion. \nHeld: \n1. The First Amendment does not require a separate "opinion" privilege limiting the application of state defamation laws. While the Amendment does limit such application, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, the breathing space that freedoms of expression require to survive is adequately secured by existing constitutional doctrine. Foremost, where a media defendant is involved, a statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false before liability can be assessed, Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, thus ensuring full constitutional protection for a statement of opinion having no provably false factual connotation. Next, statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual are protected, see, e.g., Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, thus assuring that public debate will not suffer for lack of "imaginative expression" or the "rhetorical hyperbole" which has traditionally added much to the discourse of this Nation. The reference to "opinion" in dictum in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-340, was not intended to create a wholesale defamation exemption for "opinion." Read in context, the Gertz dictum is merely a reiteration of Justice Holmes' "marketplace of ideas" concept, see Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630. Simply couching a statement--"Jones is a liar"--in terms of opinion--"In my opinion Jones is a liar"--does not dispel the factual implications contained in the statement. Pp. 11-21. \n2. A reasonable factfinder could conclude that the statements in the Diadiun column imply an assertion that Milkovich perjured himself in a judicial proceeding. The article did not use the sort of loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language that would negate the impression that Diadiun was seriously maintaining Milkovich committed perjury. Nor does the article's general tenor negate this impression. In addition, the connotation that Milkovich committed perjury is sufficiently factual that it is susceptible of being proved true or false by comparing, inter alia, his testimony before the OHSAA board with his subsequent testimony before the trial court. Pp. 21-22. \n3. This decision balances the First Amendment's vital guarantee of free and uninhibited discussion of public issues with the important social values that underlie defamation law and society's pervasive and strong interest in preventing and redressing attacks upon reputation. Pp. 22-23. \n\n\nThe full case facts can be found at the source link:
648693
It depends on which court handled the case. If it is the U.S. Supreme Court, go to the website; http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ and click on the the docket link and enterin your search criteria. Good luck.
458424
American Ice Company v. Hunter, Appellant.\nNo. 267, Oct. T., 1914\nSUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n60 Pa. Super. 311, *; 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187, ** \n60 Pa. Super. 311; 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187\n\nAre you looking for the whole case?
111144
go to google and type in "sports related cases"
1059141
What you are looking for is "Case Law" and "Case History". I have a link here that may help you. If it doens't, then you may have to go to the County courthouse and tell the clerk of court what you are looking for. They can direct you from there. Another place to check is at a local college that has a law program. It is likely that they have a law library that you can go and look around in. The people there can help you find what you are looking for as well. Here is the link:\n\nhttp://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=26528
583033
Article in a Newspaper\nGlaberson W. 1999 June 7. The courts vs. scientific certainty. New York Times; Sect 4; 5 (col 3).
163790
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/sbahome.html
987110
Well, the first step is to identify where it happened. Was it a state case or federal? What state / district? Was it appealed? Do you have a formal citation for the case? Or even a year?\n\nThere are many legal database out there (findlaw.com being one of the more useful). But if you don't know what jurisdiction the case was, it's going to be impossible to find.
281373
try this\nhttp://library.findlaw.com/
81317
In a law library.  There is probably one at the county seat that is open to the public.  The S.W. is SouthWest Reports.  Volume 390, page 266, will be the start of the case.\n\nYou can print out all cases from Westlaw's web site, but you need an account with them; it's not free.  If you know anyone who is a lawyer or law student, they may be able to print it out for you.
359776
Well, I'm not to good in all this court stuff and by copying and pasting what a website says will just make you read more (from what I say and what the site says), so here is a website. I'll post it under sources so you just have to click it. :)
1084081
www.nolo.com or www.findlaw.com.
1176298
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=012201
1139048
http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2100.html
557823
If this is for a school assignment your school might have lexis nexus, which is a database to find cases.  I have access using my university's library system.\n\nYou might also want to try the county websites or even the state's website.
431530
Check out the following website, but what article and what section of the paper was it in?
89386
Contact the District Attorneys Office for the Supreme Court.\nf the case orriginally was filed where you live, your local DA can find out for you if you were involved in the original conviction.