CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS 388 U.S. 130 (1967) CASE BRIEF

CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS

388 U.S. 130 (1967)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a combined review of two cases. The first was to review a federal court judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages in a defamation action involving a public figure but not a public official and a Texas judgment awarding compensatory damages in its defamation action.

FACTS: The Saturday Evening Post (D) printed an article accusing Butts (P), the coach of the University of Georgia football team, of conspiring to fix a 1962 Georgia-Alabama game by giving Paul Bryant, the Alabama coach, crucial information about Georgia's offensive strategy. The article revealed that George Burnett, an Atlanta insurance salesman had because of electronic error, overheard a phone conversation between the two coaches. P denied the charges and sued D. Expert witnesses supported P's contention from analysis of the actual game and from notes prepared by P relating to the conversation. The evidence also tended to show that D had departed greatly from the standards of good investigation and reporting. The jury was instructed that the truth was a defense only if the libelous statements were substantially true. The jury returned for verdict for P that was reduced on remittitur. The Supreme Court then handed down the Sullivan decision and D moved for a new trial. The trial court denied that because P was not a public official and there was ample evidence that the jury could have concluded that the statements were published with reckless disregard for the truth. The appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Another action by Associated Press v. Walker was also heard accusing Walker of leading a charge against federal marshals sent to allow a Negro to enroll as a student. Walker admitted his presence on the campus but claimed the exact opposite; that he had counseled restraint from the students and did not charge the federal marshals. There was evidence of negligence. P got the verdict and both sides appealed. The trial court refused to enter the award for punitive damages; there was only evidence of negligence and not malice.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner