Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Literature/writing

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Literature/writing

Court rules teachers are public officials

Article Abstract:

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that in libel cases teachers are to be considered public officials and as such actual malice must be shown to sustain a charge of libel. A teacher sued school board members, parents and a former student for statements they made outside the confines of the state board of education, arguing that such statements were not privileged and that the malice standard for teachers was unfair. The court disagreed, citing the public responsibility teachers have and the public's interest in teachers' qualifications.

Publisher: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Publication Name: News Media & the Law
Subject: Literature/writing
ISSN: 0149-0737
Year: 1992
Laws, regulations and rules, Teachers, Public officers, Government officials

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Privilege covering statement at council hearings not absolute; statements unrelated to matter discussed or known to be false not protected

Article Abstract:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in Vultaggio v. Yasko that libelous statements made by members of the public at city council hearings were protected by only a conditional, not an absolute privilege and that this privilege did not cover libelous statements unrelated to the matter being discussed at the meeting. The conditional privilege offers adequate protection to the witness, yet still gives the injured party the chance to secure redress in a libel action.

Publisher: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Publication Name: News Media & the Law
Subject: Literature/writing
ISSN: 0149-0737
Year: 1998
Wisconsin

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Singer's divorce is matter of legitimate public concern: court won't second-guess newsworthiness of 'economic spousal abuse'

Article Abstract:

The New York Court of Appeals ruled in Huggins v. Moore that the divorce of singer Melba Moore from husband Charles Huggins was a matter of legitimate public interest and proof of gross negligence was needed to sustain a libel case against a newspaper reporting on the divorce.

Publisher: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Publication Name: News Media & the Law
Subject: Literature/writing
ISSN: 0149-0737
Year: 2000
New York, Media coverage, Divorce, Moore, Melba

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Cases, Libel and slander
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Let's go to the tape.... State high court rules trial court cannot close hearings to media based on 'speculation' on fair trial impact
  • Abstracts: Court refuses to set "libel by implication" standard. English libel judgment found repugnant to U.S., state law: state high court refuses to enforce claim in dispute between two former Soviet citizens
  • Abstracts: Court approves closing of jury selection. Maryland court strikes down trial closure. Courts allow order requiring journalists to sign secrecy agreement
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.