OLLMAN v. EVANS Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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.
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
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
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.