DOCSLIB.ORG

Introductory Note 22:1 Libel Or Slander Per Se

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introductory Note 22:1 Libel Or Slander Per Se CHAPTER 22 DEFAMATION (LIBEL AND SLANDER) Introductory Note 22:1 Libel or Slander Per Se — Where the Plaintiff Is a Public Official or Public Person or, If a Private Person, the Statement Pertained to a Matter of Public Interest or General Concern — Elements of Liability 22:2 Libel or Slander Per Quod — Where the Plaintiff Is a Public Official or Public Person or, If a Private Person, the Statement Pertained to a Matter of Public Interest or General Concern — Elements of Liability 22:3 Reckless Disregard Defined — Where the Plaintiff Is a Public Official or Public Person or, If a Private Person, the Statement Pertained to a Matter of Public Interest or General Concern 22:4 Libel or Slander Per Se — In a Private Matter Where Plaintiff Is a Private Person — Elements of Liability 22:5 Libel or Slander Per Quod — In a Private Matter Where Plaintiff Is a Private Person — Elements of Liability 22:6 Incremental Harm 22:7 Published — Defined 22:8 Defamatory — Defined 22:9 About the Plaintiff — Defined 22:10 Determination of Meaning of Statement — How Understood by Others 22:11 Determination of Meaning of Statement — Publication to Be Considered as a Whole 22:12 Determination of Meaning of Statement — Publication to Be Considered In Light of Surrounding Circumstances 22:13 False — Defined 22:14 Special Damages — Defined 22:15 Actual Damage — Defined 22:16 Affirmative Defense — Substantial Truth 22:17 Affirmative Defense — Absolute Privilege 22:18 Affirmative Defense — Qualified Privilege — When Lost 22:19 Affirmative Defense — Privilege to Report Official or Public Meeting Proceedings 22:20 Affirmative Defense — Privilege to Provider of Means of Communication 22:21 Affirmative Defense — Fair Comment 22:22 Affirmative Defense — Consent 22:23 Affirmative Defense — Statute of Limitations 22:24 Repetition by Third Persons as an Element of Damages 22:25 Damages — Recovery of 22:26 Circumstances That Mitigate Damages 22:27 Exemplary or Punitive Damages 2 Introductory Note 1. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80, 84 S. Ct. 710, 726, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964), the Supreme Court held that the guarantees of freedom of speech and press of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibit a public official “from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’―that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not.” This constitutional privilege was premised on our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open,” and on recognition that erroneous statements are “inevitable” in the discussion of public affairs. Id. at 270, 84 S. Ct. at 721. In St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S. Ct. 1323, 1325, 20 L. Ed. 2d 262 (1968), the Court explained that the term “reckless disregard,” like “actual malice,” is a term of art, and requires evidence that the defendant “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S. Ct. 1975, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1094 (1967), the Supreme Court extended the rule to cases brought by persons who, although not public officials, are deemed “public figures.” 2. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974), the Supreme Court held that although the First Amendment privilege extends to a defamation of a private individual when the defamation relates to a matter of public interest or general concern, the “States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability so long as they do not impose liability without fault.” Accord Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S. Ct. 958, 47 L. Ed. 2d 154 (1976). After the Gertz decision, the Colorado Supreme Court decided Walker v. Colorado Springs Sun, Inc., 538 P.2d 450 (Colo. 1975). Walker was a case brought by a private plaintiff concerning a publication that involved a matter of public interest. The court rejected the negligence standard of liability and adopted the liability standard of New York Times, 376 U.S. 254, except that it declined to adopt the St. Amant requirement for public officials or public persons, that reckless disregard requires the defendant to have “entertained serious doubts as to the truth.” Subsequently, in Diversified Management, Inc. v. Denver Post, Inc., 653 P.2d 1103 (Colo. 1982), the court overruled this exception in Walker and held that the St. Amant definition of “reckless disregard” should be used “in cases involving matters of public interest or general concern, as well as in cases involving public officials and public figures.” Id. at 1110. See also Shoen v. Shoen, 2012 COA 207, 292 P.3d 1224; Lockett v. Garrett, 1 P.3d 206 (Colo. App. 1999); Fink v. Combined Commc’ns Corp., 679 P.2d 1108 (Colo. App. 1984); Willis v. Perry, 677 P.2d 961 (Colo. App. 1983). 3. The “constitutionalization” of the law of libel under New York Times and its progeny also reallocated the traditional roles of a court as an arbiter of law and a court or jury as factfinder in resolving factual issues that involve drawing “line[s] between speech unconditionally guaranteed and speech which may legitimately be regulated.” New York Times, 376 U.S. at 285, quoting Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525 (1958). In such cases, a reviewing court must “examine for [itself] the statements in issue and the circumstances under which they were made to see . whether they are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment . protect.” Id., citing Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 335 (1946). The Colorado Supreme Court has embraced the responsibility doctrine of “independent review,” which it characterizes as “de novo” review in cases involving speech arguably protected by the 3 Colorado Constitution. Walker v. Colorado Springs Sun, 538 P.2d 450 (Colo. 1975); see also NBC Subsid. (KCNC-TV), Inc. v. Living Will Ctr., 879 P.2d 6, 11 (Colo. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1015 (1995). When performing the function of independent review, courts require that the plaintiff’s factual proof on a factual issue of constitutional significance be supported by “convincing clarity,” or, as alternatively stated, by “clear and convincing evidence.” DiLeo v. Koltnow, 613 P.2d 318, 323 (Colo. 1980). The “clear and convincing” burden of proof is to be applied by the factfinder and the court when determining the issues of falsity and knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. New York Times, 376 U.S. 254; McIntyre v. Jones, 194 P.3d 519 (Colo. App. 2008); Barnett v. Denver Publ’g, Inc., 36 P.3d 145 (Colo. App.), cert. denied (2001); Lockett v. Garrett, 1 P.3d 206 (Colo. App. 1999); Smiley’s Too, Inc. v. Denver Post Corp., 935 P.2d 39 (Colo. App. 1996), cert. denied (1997). The clear and convincing burden of proof also applies in cases brought by a public officials or public figures or that involve a matter of public or general concern when a factual issue is presented as to whether the publication is “of and concerning” the plaintiff. New York Times, 376 U.S. 254. 4. In Rowe v. Metz, 579 P.2d 83 (Colo. 1978), the court held the Gertz rule (that presumed damages were unconstitutional without proof of actual malice as defined in New York Times) did not apply to a case of a private plaintiff and a non-media defendant in a purely private context. In effect, the court in Rowe followed the common-law rules of presumed damages in such cases where the defamation is per se. In Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 105 S. Ct. 2939, 86 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1985), five justices concurred that a state, without violating the First Amendment, may permit a private plaintiff to recover presumed or punitive damages for defamatory statements not involving a matter of public concern without a showing of “actual malice.” Eight justices also specifically agreed that the scope of the First Amendment privilege does not depend on whether the defendant is a news medium. 5. Thus, in Colorado, the New York Times-St. Amant rule applies when the plaintiff is a public official or a public person, see, e.g., DiLeo v. Koltnow, 613 P.2d 318 (Colo. 1980), or when the plaintiff is a private person involved in a matter of public interest or general concern. See Instruction 22:3. The pre-New York Times common-law rule of presumed damages applies (see Instruction 22:4) only when the claimed defamation involves a private matter and the plaintiff is a private person. See Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 472 U.S. 749; Rowe v. Metz, 579 P.2d 83 (Colo. 1978). 6. In Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 768-69, 106 S. Ct. 1558, 1559, 89 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1986), the Court held that “at least where a newspaper publishes speech of public concern, a private figure-plaintiff cannot recover damages without showing that the statements at issue are false.” Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any Colorado appellate court has determined whether a private person suing over a private matter is subject to the same requirement. However, the Colorado Supreme Court has rendered decisions suggesting that, even in a purely private defamation action, the federal and/or state constitutions require the plaintiff to prove falsity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grand Jury Handbook-For Jurors
    Grand Jury Handbook From the Office of Your District Attorney Welcome to The Grand Jury Welcome. You have just assumed a most important role in the administration of justice in your community. Service on the Grand Jury is one way in which you, as a responsible citizen, can directly participate in government. The Grand Jury has the responsibility of safeguarding individuals from ungrounded prosecution while simultaneously protecting the public from crime and criminals. The purpose of this handbook is to help you meet these responsibilities, and be knowledgeable about your duties and limitations. Your service and Copyright April, 2004 acceptance of your duties as a serious commitment to the community is Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia greatly appreciated. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 This handbook was prepared by the staff of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia and provided to you by your District Attorney’s All rights reserved office to help you fulfill your duties as a Grand Juror. It summarizes the history of the Grand Jury as well as the law and procedures governing the Grand Jury. This handbook will provide you with an overview of the duties, functions and limitations of the Grand Jury. However, the If you have a disability which requires printed materials in alternative formats, legal advice given to you by the court and by me and my assistants will please contact the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia at 404-969-4001. provide a more comprehensive explanation of all of your responsibilities. I sincerely hope you will find the opportunity to participate in the enforcement of the law an enlightening experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation, That Is, Comments Or Statements That Tarnish Or Destroy a Person’S Reputation in the Minds of Others
    You Can’t Say That!! continued Hilary Findlay, a lawyer, and Rachel Corbett, a risk management consultant, are founders and directors of the Centre for Sport and Law. They are regular contributors to Coaches Report. In the last issue of Coaches Report, we wrote about defamation, that is, comments or statements that tarnish or destroy a person’s reputation in the minds of others. We identified the three elements that make a communication defamatory: A written or spoken communication must be made to a third person. The communication must convey a defamatory meaning or be capable of being interpreted in a defamatory manner. The defamatory meaning must be about the person bringing the allegation. We cited the case of Pliuskaitis v. Jotautas,1 in which a board member of a swim club was found by the court to have made a number of defamatory comments about the club’s coach. We explained that there is a very low threshold for a finding of defamation. In other words, it is not difficult to prove the three elements of defamation described above. Once defamation is established, the question becomes, Are the circumstances such that a defamatory communication may be legally justified or allowable? These are called “defences” to a claim of defamation and they are the focus of this article. We will also pick up the case of Pliuskaitis v. Jotautas and look at the defences put forward by the board member and see whether or not they were successful. There are four defences to a finding of defamation: consent, fair comment, justification, and qualified privilege.
    [Show full text]
  • PJAL Manual 11Th Edition a Compilation of the Laws Concerning the Authority and Responsibility of Parish Governing Authorities Updated Through The
    PJAL Manual 11th Edition A compilation of the laws concerning the authority and responsibility of parish Governing Authorities updated through the Regular Legislative Session of 2019 Police Jury Association of Louisiana Page | i Preface The Police Jury Manual is designed as a ready reference to the general Constitutional and statutory provisions on the powers, duties and responsibilities of police jurors/parish government officials. Its purpose is to bring together in a single volume legal provisions that are widely scattered throughout the Constitution and statutes. Every effort has been made to accurately summarize the general laws governing police juries/parish governments. The manual, however, is not to be used as a legal text or for the purpose of legal opinions. The state Constitution, the statutes and court decisions are the final authorities governing police jury/parish governing authority operations. Each reference in the manual includes the legal citation necessary to assist the reader in locating the precise wording of the law or the more detailed and technical provisions that may have been omitted. Legal provisions pertaining to police jury/parish governing authority powers in certain areas, such as taxing and borrowing authority, are numerous, complex and sometimes archaic, contradictory and vague. For this reason, it is very important that police juries/parish governments consult their legal advisors in all cases in which a question of law or legal interpretation is involved. The Police Jury Manual was first prepared and published in 1960 by the Public Affairs Research Council (PAR) at the request of the Police Jury Association of Louisiana. This completely revised and updated eleventh edition was revised by the Police Jury Association staff.
    [Show full text]
  • The Myth of the Presumption of Innocence
    Texas Law Review See Also Volume 94 Response The Myth of the Presumption of Innocence Brandon L. Garrett* I. Introduction Do we have a presumption of innocence in this country? Of course we do. After all, we instruct criminal juries on it, often during jury selection, and then at the outset of the case and during final instructions before deliberations. Take this example, delivered by a judge at a criminal trial in Illinois: "Under the law, the Defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him. This presumption remains with the Defendant throughout the case and is not overcome until in your deliberations you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty."' Perhaps the presumption also reflects something more even, a larger commitment enshrined in a range of due process and other constitutional rulings designed to protect against wrongful convictions. The defense lawyer in the same trial quoted above said in his closings: [A]s [the defendant] sits here right now, he is presumed innocent of these charges. That is the corner stone of our system of justice. The best system in the world. That is a presumption that remains with him unless and until the State can prove him guilty beyond2 a reasonable doubt. That's the lynchpin in the system ofjustice. Our constitutional criminal procedure is animated by that commitment, * Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law. 1. Transcript of Record at 13, People v. Gonzalez, No. 94 CF 1365 (Ill.Cir. Ct. June 12, 1995). 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Justice and the Jury, 72 Brook
    Brooklyn Law Review Volume 72 Issue 1 SYMPOSIUM: Article 3 Justice Blackmun and Judicial Biography: A Conversation With Linda Greenhouse 2006 The uJ stice and the Jury Jason Mazzone Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Recommended Citation Jason Mazzone, The Justice and the Jury, 72 Brook. L. Rev. (2006). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol72/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. The Justice and the Jury Jason Mazzone† I. INTRODUCTION Judges who work with juries—trial judges—tend to think very highly of them.1 Studies show that trial judges almost unanimously believe that juries reach fair verdicts; most trial judges report that if they personally were involved in a criminal or civil case they would want it to be decided by a jury.2 Judge William L. Dwyer, a judge for fifteen years on the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle, considered jurors his “courtroom companions” who routinely produced “fair and honest verdicts.”3 Chief Judge Mark W. Bennett of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa states that it † Associate Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. [email protected]. For helpful comments, I thank Linda Greenhouse, Susan Herman, Harold Koh and David Sklansky. 1 The favorable views held by trial judges contrast with commentators’ frequent criticisms of juries. See, e.g., HARRY KALVEN, JR.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Jury Duty in Ohio
    A grand jury is an essential part of the legal system. What Is a Grand Jury? In Ohio, a grand jury decides whether the state Thank you for your willingness to help your has good enough reason to bring felony charges fellow citizens by serving as a grand juror. As against a person alleged to have committed a a former prosecuting attorney, I can attest crime. Felonies are serious crimes — ranging that you have been asked to play a vital role from murder, rape, other sexual assaults, and in American democracy. kidnapping to drug offenses, robbery, larceny, financial crimes, arson, and many more. The justice system in America and in Ohio cannot function properly without the The grand jury is an accusatory body. It does not dedication and involvement of its citizens. determine guilt or innocence. The grand jury’s I guarantee that when you come to the end duty is simply to determine whether there is of your time on the grand jury, you will sufficient evidence to make a person face criminal consider this service to have been one of the charges. The grand jury is designed to help the best experiences of your life. state proceed with a fair accusation against a person, while protecting that person from being Our society was founded on the idea of equal charged when there is insufficient evidence. justice under law, and the grand jury is a critical part of that system. Thank you again In Ohio, the grand jury is composed of nine for playing a key role in American justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal
    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Rehabilitating a Federal Supervisor's Reputation Through a Claim
    Title VII and EEOC case law have created an almost blanket protection for defamatory statements made in the form of allegations of harassment or discrimination in the federal workplace. In this environment, federal supervisors would do well to exercise caution before resorting to the intui- tive remedy of a defamation claim. Although there are some situations where an employee may engage in action so egregious that a claim of defamation is a good option, one cannot escape the fact that supervisory employment in the federal workplace comes with an increased risk of defamatory accusations for which there is no legal remedy. BY DANIEL WATSON 66 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2014 Rehabilitating a Federal Supervisor’s Reputation Through a Claim of Defamation ohn Doe is a supervisor for a federal and demeaning insults he was alleged to have yelled at Jane agency. As he was leaving the office one Doe, and sex discrimination for his refusal to publish her work. Outraged at the false accusation, John immediately called Jnight, a female subordinate, Jane Doe, Jane into his office and asked her how she could have lied. Did stopped and asked why her work product she not know it was illegal to lie about that type of behavior? Jane responded by accusing John of retaliation. A week after had not received approval for publication. the incident, while speaking to a coworker, John Doe discov- He attempted to explain that he had already ered that the coworker had overheard the entire conversation documented his critique via e-mail and that between John and Jane and would swear to the fact that Jane was lying about what was said.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Grand Jury Indictment Process
    The NCSC Center for Jury Studies is dedicated to facilitating the ability of citizens to fulfill their role within the justice system and enhancing their confidence and satisfaction with jury service by helping judges and court staff improve jury system management. This document was prepared with support from a grant from the State Justice Institute (SJI-18-N-051). The points of view and opinions offered in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Center for State Courts or the State Justice Institute. NCSC Staff: Paula Hannaford-Agor, JD Caisa Royer, JD/PhD Madeline Williams, BS Allison Trochesset, PhD The National Center for State Courts promotes the rule of law and improves the administration of justice in state courts and courts around the world. Copyright 2021 National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147 ISBN 978-0-89656-316-2 Table of Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 What Is a Grand Jury?............................................................................................2 Special Duties .........................................................................................................3 Size Requirements...................................................................................................4 Term of Service and Quorum Requirements ...........................................................5 Reform
    [Show full text]
  • Introductory Note 22:1 Libel Or Slander Per Se
    CHAPTER 22 DEFAMATION (LIBEL AND SLANDER) Introductory Note 22:1 Libel or Slander Per Se — Where the Plaintiff Is a Public Official or Public Person or, If a Private Person, the Statement Pertained to a Matter of Public Interest or General Concern — Elements of Liability 22:2 Libel or Slander Per Quod — Where the Plaintiff Is a Public Official or Public Person or, If a Private Person, the Statement Pertained to a Matter of Public Interest or General Concern — Elements of Liability 22:3 Reckless Disregard Defined — Where the Plaintiff Is a Public Official or Public Person or, If a Private Person, the Statement Pertained to a Matter of Public Interest or General Concern 22:4 Libel or Slander Per Se — In a Private Matter Where Plaintiff Is a Private Person — Elements of Liability 22:5 Libel or Slander Per Quod — In a Private Matter Where Plaintiff Is a Private Person — Elements of Liability 22:6 Incremental Harm 22:7 Published — Defined 22:8 Defamatory — Defined 22:9 About the Plaintiff — Defined 22:10 Determination of Meaning of Statement — How Understood by Others 22:11 Determination of Meaning of Statement — Publication to Be Considered as a Whole 22:12 Determination of Meaning of Statement — Publication to Be Considered In Light of Surrounding Circumstances 22:13 False — Defined 22:14 Special Damages — Defined 22:15 Actual Damage — Defined 22:16 Affirmative Defense — Substantial Truth 22:17 Affirmative Defense — Absolute Privilege 22:18 Affirmative Defense — Qualified Privilege — When Lost 22:19 Affirmative Defense — Privilege to Report Official or Public Meeting Proceedings 22:20 Affirmative Defense — Privilege to Provider of Means of Communication 22:21 Affirmative Defense — Fair Comment 22:22 Affirmative Defense — Consent 22:23 Affirmative Defense — Statute of Limitations 22:24 Repetition by Third Persons as an Element of Damages 22:25 Damages — Recovery of 22:26 Circumstances That Mitigate Damages 22:27 Exemplary or Punitive Damages 2 Introductory Note 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation and the Right of Privacy
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 15 Issue 4 Issue 4 - October 1962 Article 4 10-1962 Defamation and the Right of Privacy John W. Wade, Dean Vanderbilt Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Privacy Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation John W. Wade, Dean, Defamation and the Right of Privacy, 15 Vanderbilt Law Review 1093 (1962) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol15/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Defamation and the Right of Privacy JOHN W. WADE* In this article Dean Wade discusses the scope of the tort of un- warranted invasion of the right of privacy, comparing and contrasting it with the tort of defamation. He observes that the action for invasion of the right of privacy may come to supplant the action for defamation and that this development should be welcomed by the courts and writers. Finally, he concludes that the whole law of privacy may someday be- come a part of the larger, more comprehensive tort of intentional in- fliction of mental suffering. I. INTRODUOTMON The history of the two torts of defamation and unwarranted invasion of the right of privacy has been greatly different. Defamation developed over a period of many centuries, with the twin torts of libel and slander having completely separate origins and historical growth.
    [Show full text]
  • General Jury Information
    GENERAL JURY INFORMATION WELCOME You have been summoned to appear as a Juror in your Court of Common Pleas. Most persons who serve find it interesting and we hope that you do also. You will get an insight into the work of the Courts that cannot be obtained in any other way. You may find the work is difficult and possibly not as exciting as you would expect. We realize that your daily life is interrupted and appreciate your assistance. HOW YOU WERE SUMMONED FOR JURY DUTY According to Ohio law, jurors may be summoned from the list of registered voters in the county or jurors may be summoned from a list of registered voters and licensed drivers in the county. Presently, this court summons jurors from the list of registered voters of Miami County, Ohio. A source list is developed by a random computerized drawing from the registered voters in the county. From this source list there are three random computerized drawings each year. The jurors that are drawn are notified by mail they have been selected for jury duty. WHY YOU RECEIVED A JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE When you are mailed a summons, you will also receive a Juror Questionnaire (Link to Juror Questionnaire). It will expedite the process of the jury selection if we have on file information about you, employment, former jury service, etc. Your responses assist the trial attorney in determining if he feels you would be a fair and impartial juror for his trial. Your juror questionnaire also provides the Deputy Jury Commissioner with information as to how to contact you if there would be a last minute change in your report date or time.
    [Show full text]