Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Cangelosi v. SCHWEGMANN BROS., ETC., 390 So. 2d 196.

140 citing documents.

EASTER SEAL SOC. CRIPPLED CHILDREN AND ADULTS OF LA., INC. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. 530 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Bates v. TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING CORP. 527 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Brannan v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. 526 So. 2d 1101 La. 1988
Gorman v. Swaggart 524 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Butler v. FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY 524 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Taylor v. Town of Arcadia 519 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Young Oil Co. of La., (La.App.
Spears v. McCormick & Co., Inc. 520 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Muslow v. AG Edwards & Sons, Inc. 509 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Brothers, Etc., (La.App.
Drury v. Feeney 505 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Gross v. Haight 496 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
O'DELL v. Deich 496 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Munson v. Gaylord Broadcasting Co. 491 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Although it is sometimes stated that malice or implied malice is an element of the tort of defamation, (La.
Bonnett v. Theriot 491 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Thibodeaux v. Southwest La. Hosp. Ass'n 488 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Elmer v. Coplin 485 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
The five elements necessary to maintain a defamation action were reiterated in Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros., Etc.
Kendall v. WDSU-TV Newscenter 6 of Channel 6 Affiliated with National Broadcasting Co. 483 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Dwight W. Andrus Ins., Inc. v. Abellor Corp. 482 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Juneau v. Avoyelles Parish Police Jury 482 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Williams v. Delta Haven, Inc.
Garrett v. Kneass 482 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Farria v. BONNE TERREBONNE OF HOUMA, INC. 476 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Bessie v. K-Mart Apparel Fashions Corp. 472 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Jacobs v. O'BANNON 472 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros., Etc.
Brown v. Red River Parish School Bd. 469 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
2d Cir.1975); Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros., etc.
Bill Partin Jewelry, Inc. v. Smith 467 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
3rd Cir.1983); Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros., Etc., (La.App.
Corcoran v. New Orleans Firefighter's Ass'n Local 632 468 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Bradford v. Murray 467 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Lemeshewsky v. Dumaine 464 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros., Etc.
Jenkins v. Ouachita Parish School Bd. 459 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros., Etc.
Rennier v. State, Through Dept. of Pub. Saf. 428 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros., Etc.
Health Unlimited v. Loyola University 434 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
In 1980, wherein, at page 198, the Court made the succeeding remarks: To maintain an action in defamation, the following elements must be shown: (1) defamatory words; (2) publication; (3) falsity; (4) malice, actual or implied; and (5) resulting injury.
Dupont v. Pendley 424 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
In Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros., Etc., the following guidelines for an action in defamation are set forth: “To maintain an action in defamation, the following elements must be shown: (1) defamatory words; (2) publication; (3) falsity; (4) malice, actual or implied; and (5) resulting injury.” the cou
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Melikyan 424 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
[1] in which the Supreme Court found that statements made by and in the presence of other supervisory personnel, to an employee concerning an altered check, did not constitute publication, since the supervisory personnel were essential to the investigation.
Foote v. Sarafyan 432 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
declares obiter that "words which impute a crime to another are defamatory per se ...," we have noted that the allegation of payroll fraud was published in the context of the facts upon which the allegation was based.
Ferlito v. Cecola 419 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Champagne v. Alsobrook 419 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Lincecum v. AdServe, Inc. 417 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
In the recent case of Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros., etc., (La.
Williams v. Delta Haven, Inc. 416 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Desselle v. Guillory 407 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Wattigny v. Lambert 408 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
White v. Baker Manor Nursing Home, Inc. 400 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
See also, Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros., Etc., La.R.S.