Widrig v. Oyer
13 Johns. 124
This text of 13 Johns. 124 (Widrig v. Oyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Widrig v. Oyer, 13 Johns. 124 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).
Opinion
We have no doubt the offence charged is indictable, and its criminality, or moral turpitude, cannot be questioned. The words were clearly actionable, witbin the rule laid down by üs in Brooker v. Coffin, which we consider as affording the best criterion for determining whether words spoken are actionable or not. The judgment of the court below must be reversed.
Judgment reversed*
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Kemp v. Board of Medical Supervisors
46 App. D.C. 173 (D.C. Circuit, 1917)
State v. Mason
43 P. 651 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1896)
Douglas v. Douglas
38 P. 934 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1895)
Pollard v. Lyon
91 U.S. 225 (Supreme Court, 1876)
Wright v. Paige
3 Keyes 581 (New York Court of Appeals, 1867)
Wright v. Paige
36 Barb. 438 (New York Supreme Court, 1862)
Johnson v. Shields
25 N.J.L. 116 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1855)
Burton v. Burton
3 Greene 316 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1851)
Skinner v. . White
18 N.C. 471 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1836)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
13 Johns. 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/widrig-v-oyer-nysupct-1816.