Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders case brief
472 U.S. 749 (1985)
SYNOPSIS:
On certiorari from the Supreme Court of Vermont, petitioner challenged a ruling that that respondent did not need to show actual malice to recover presumed and punitive damages for petitioner's false and defamatory statements as petitioner was a nonmedia defendant and its alleged defamatory speech was not of public concern.
OVERVIEW: Petitioner, who was in the business of composing and selling financial reports about businesses, mistakenly reported that respondent had filed for bankruptcy. The report was sent to several of petitioner's subscribers. Petitioner issued a corrective statement, but refused to divulge the names of those that received the report. Respondent brought a defamation suit and the jury awarded respondent presumed and punitive damages. However, a new trial was ordered because the court was dissatisfied with its jury instructions regarding petitioner's knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
HOLDING:
The Supreme Court of Vermont reversed, holding that respondent was not required to show actual malice to recover presumed and punitive damages because petitioner was a nonmedia entity.
ANALYSIS:
On certiorari the Court affirmed, holding that respondent was not required to show actual malice to recover presumed and punitive damages because petitioner's false and defamatory speech was not a matter of public concern.
RULES:
A public official cannot recover damages for defamatory falsehood unless he proves that the false statement was made with actual malice -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
OUTCOME: Affirmed; because respondent was a private party, and because petitioner's false and defamatory statements against respondent did not involve matters of public concern, respondent was not required to show petitioner acted with actual malice when making the defamatory statements to recover presumed and punitive damages.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
472 U.S. 749 (1985)
SYNOPSIS:
On certiorari from the Supreme Court of Vermont, petitioner challenged a ruling that that respondent did not need to show actual malice to recover presumed and punitive damages for petitioner's false and defamatory statements as petitioner was a nonmedia defendant and its alleged defamatory speech was not of public concern.
OVERVIEW: Petitioner, who was in the business of composing and selling financial reports about businesses, mistakenly reported that respondent had filed for bankruptcy. The report was sent to several of petitioner's subscribers. Petitioner issued a corrective statement, but refused to divulge the names of those that received the report. Respondent brought a defamation suit and the jury awarded respondent presumed and punitive damages. However, a new trial was ordered because the court was dissatisfied with its jury instructions regarding petitioner's knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
HOLDING:
The Supreme Court of Vermont reversed, holding that respondent was not required to show actual malice to recover presumed and punitive damages because petitioner was a nonmedia entity.
ANALYSIS:
On certiorari the Court affirmed, holding that respondent was not required to show actual malice to recover presumed and punitive damages because petitioner's false and defamatory speech was not a matter of public concern.
RULES:
A public official cannot recover damages for defamatory falsehood unless he proves that the false statement was made with actual malice -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
OUTCOME: Affirmed; because respondent was a private party, and because petitioner's false and defamatory statements against respondent did not involve matters of public concern, respondent was not required to show petitioner acted with actual malice when making the defamatory statements to recover presumed and punitive damages.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment