Time, Inc. v. Hill case brief summary
385 U.S. 374 (1967)
CASE FACTS
Appellant publisher of a national magazine sought review of judgment, contending that it was denied constitutional protections of speech and press by the application of N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50-51 to award appellee damages on allegations that appellant falsely reported that a new play portrayed an experience suffered by appellee and his family.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Judgment was reversed and remanded as the constitutional protections of speech and press precluded the application of the statute to redress false reports of matters of public interest in the absence of proof that appellant published the report with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
385 U.S. 374 (1967)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant publisher of a
national magazine sought review of judgment from the Court of Appeals
of New York, contending that it was denied constitutional protections
of speech and press by the application of N.Y. Civ. Rights Law
§§ 50-51 to award appellee damages on allegations that
appellant falsely reported that a new play portrayed an experience
suffered by appellee and his family.CASE FACTS
Appellant publisher of a national magazine sought review of judgment, contending that it was denied constitutional protections of speech and press by the application of N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50-51 to award appellee damages on allegations that appellant falsely reported that a new play portrayed an experience suffered by appellee and his family.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, judgment was reversed and remanded.
- In support of its ruling, the Supreme Court held that the constitutional protections for speech and press precluded the application of the statute to redress false reports of matters of public interest in the absence of proof that appellant published the report with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth.
- The Court noted that the evidence could have supported either a jury finding of innocent or merely negligent misstatement by appellant, or a finding of appellant's reckless disregard of the truth or actual knowledge of falsity.
- The jury instruction given by the lower court, however, failed to confine the jury to a verdict of liability based upon a finding that the statements in the article were made with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth.
CONCLUSION
Judgment was reversed and remanded as the constitutional protections of speech and press precluded the application of the statute to redress false reports of matters of public interest in the absence of proof that appellant published the report with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment