Connection lost
Server error
OLLMAN v. EVANS Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A Marxist professor sued political columnists for libel after they wrote he had “no status” in his profession. The D.C. Circuit held the statement was constitutionally protected opinion, not an actionable assertion of fact, establishing a key test for making this distinction.
Legal Significance: This case established the influential four-factor “Ollman test” for distinguishing constitutionally protected opinion from actionable fact in defamation law, analyzing language, verifiability, and the immediate and broader context of a statement.
OLLMAN v. EVANS Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Bertell Ollman, a Marxist political science professor at New York University, was nominated to become the chairman of the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland. The nomination sparked a public controversy. Columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak published a syndicated opinion column on the Op-Ed page titled “The Marxist Professor’s Intentions.” The column questioned Ollman’s fitness for the position, citing his own writings about using the classroom to promote revolution. Ollman sued for libel, alleging several statements were false and defamatory. The most contentious statement was a quote attributed to an anonymous political scientist: “Ollman has no status within the profession but is a pure and simple activist.” Other challenged statements characterized Ollman as an “outspoken proponent of ‘political Marxism’” and asserted his writings “avow his desire to use the classroom as an instrument for preparing… ‘the revolution.’” The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the statements were protected opinion. The D.C. Circuit heard the case en banc.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Are allegedly defamatory statements published in a political opinion column, including the assertion that a professor has “no status within the profession,” constitutionally protected expressions of opinion or actionable assertions of fact?
The challenged statements are non-actionable expressions of opinion protected by the First Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Are allegedly defamatory statements published in a political opinion column, including the assertion that a professor has “no status within the profession,” constitutionally protected expressions of opinion or actionable assertions of fact?
Conclusion
This case provides a foundational framework for the modern fact-opinion distinction in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore m
Legal Rule
To distinguish a constitutionally protected statement of opinion from an actionable assertion Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui of
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis began with the principle from *Gertz v. Robert Welch, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehen
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.