Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...
False light privacy claims often arise under the same facts as defamation cases, and therefore not all states recognize false light actions. There is a subtle difference in the way courts view the legal theories—false light cases are about damage to a person's personal feelings or dignity, whereas defamation is about damage to a person's ...
Hassell v. Bird was a case heard within the California court system related to a court-ordered removal of a defamatory user review of a law firm from the Yelp website. The case, first heard in the California Court of Appeals, First District, Division Four, unanimously ruled in favor of the law firm, ordering Yelp to remove the review in 2016.
Although laws vary by state; in America, a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant: made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; shared the statement with a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
Lastly, some implicit statements of fact—those that have a "false factual connotation"—can also fall under this exception. [22] [23] There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v.
A California jury found Walmart defamed a driver with false claims of workers' compensation fraud, and now the company must pay the former worker more than $34 million in damages.
Exxon Mobil Corp. filed a federal defamation lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and several environmental groups, months after Bonta sued the oil and gas giant alleging that it ...
Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. was a decision by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled that the "actual malice" required under California law for imposition of punitive damages is distinct from the "actual malice" required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to be liable for defaming a "public figure", and that the National Enquirer is not a "newspaper" for the purposes of ...