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 ...
This doctrine is applied in matters in which truth is used as an absolute defence to a defamation claim brought against a public figure, but only false statements made with "actual malice" are subject to sanctions. [2] A defendant using truth as a defence in a defamation case is not required to justify every word of the alleged defamatory ...
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 ...
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.
In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things: [2] Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
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 ...
Any statement of opinion without underlying facts is to be treated as a factual assertion per se. If it implies the existence of undisclosed facts which are false and defamatory, it is actionable. False statements of fact couched in an opinion context are actionable unless clearly set aside by "loose, figurative or hyperbolic language." [9]