Phantom Touring Co. v. Affiliated Publications, Inc.

How later courts describe this case

• stating that “a defendant is entitled to knowledge of the precise language challenged as defamatory, and the plaintiff therefore is limited to its complaint in defining the scope of the alleged defamation”
• statement alleging that a production was “fake” and “phony” held “unprovable, since those adjectives admit of numerous interpretations”
• publication describing Ken Hill’s touring production of “Phantom of the Opera” as a “rip-off, a fraud, a scandal, a snake-oil job” was protected opinion
• “a defendant is entitled to knowledge of the precise language challenged as defamatory, and the plaintiff therefore is limited to its complaint in defining the scope of the alleged defamation”
• Milkovich does not "represent a departure from established Ninth Circuit law"