Opinion defense wins dismissal of two suits

Article Abstract:

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and appellate courts' rulings in Brian v. Richardson in finding that an article written by Elliot Richardson regarding the Dept of Justice and Inslaw, Inc. was protected from libel suits as an opinion piece. The article "A High-Tech Watergate" was filled with speculative charges and appeared on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times. The high court stated that placement on the Op-Ed page alone was not conclusive, but it found the article to be protected opinion because of that placement, the article's tone and the article's purpose.

Laws, regulations and rules, United States. Department of Justice, Editorials, New York (State), INSLAW Inc.

---

Publisher not required to investigate charges in book: dismissal of McFarlane's suit over 'October Surprise' allegations upheld on appeal

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in McFarlane v. Sheridan Square Press that insufficient evidence had been presented for actual malice to be found in the publication of "Profits of War." The book asserted that former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane was involved in planning the "October Surprise" deal in 1980. McFarlane claimed that the publisher acted with reckless disregard in failing to corroborate the author's assertions. The Court found that corroboration was not necessary and that limited investigation of libel risks was reasonable.

United States, McFarlane, Robert C., Profits of War (Book)

---

Paper's interpretation of ethics letters as 'warnings' upheld

Article Abstract:

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Wausau ruled in Torgerson v. Journal Sentinel, Inc. that former state insurance official John Torgerson did not demonstrate actual malice in his libel claims against the Milwaukee Journal. The Journal reported that the state Ethics Board cited a conflict of interest between his position and his ownership of a title insurance business. The court ruled that there was no actual malice because the story reasonably interpreted the Ethics Board's statements.

Wisconsin, Public officers, Government officials, Wisconsin. Office of the Commissioner of Insurance

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Court expands fair report privilege to private individuals. Judge's libel suit over 'crystal ball' allegation properly dismissed
• Abstracts: Court declines to review public official ruling. State high court affirms libel verdict over editorial. Court upholds critic's review of 'fake phantom.' (drama critic's review of Ken Hill's version of 'Phantom of the Opera')
• Abstracts: Rape victim's identity ruled matter of public concern. Court recognizes privacy claims in case over nude vacation photos
• Abstracts: Campaign reporting: a guide to election records and events. Publishers must receive notice before being banned from prisons

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.