HARTE-HANKS COMMUNICATIONS V. CONNAUGHTON
491 U.S. 657 (1989)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Harte-Hanks (D) appealed an affirmation by the Court of Appeals of a
jury verdict in favor of Connaughton (P) in P's action for public figure libel. The Supreme
Court granted certiorari.
FACTS: D was the unsuccessful candidate for the office of Municipal Judge in an election.
D is the publisher of the Journal News, a local newspaper that supported the reelection of
the incumbent, James Dolan. In about a month after the election, the incumbent's Director of
Court Services resigned and was arrested on bribery charges. A grand jury investigation was
underway when on November 1, 1983, D ran a front-page story quoting Alice Thompson, a grand
jury witness, as stating that P had used 'dirty tricks' and offered her and her sister jobs
and a trip to Florida 'in appreciation' for their help in the investigation. P filed an
action for damages, alleging that the article was false, that it had damaged his personal
and professional reputation, and that it had been published with actual malice. D filed a
motion for summary judgment relying in part on an argument that even if Thompson's
statements were false, the First Amendment protects the accurate and disinterested reporting
of serious charges against a public figure. The District Court denied the motion. The jury
unanimously found by a preponderance of the evidence that the November 1 story was
defamatory and that it was false. It also found by clear and convincing proof that the story
was published with actual malice. After a separate hearing on damages, the jury awarded P
$5,000 in compensatory damages and $195,000 in punitive damages. The District Court denied a
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and D appealed. The Court of Appeals
affirmed. P appealed contending that the Court of Appeals made two errors: it applied a less
severe standard than that of actual malice and erroneously applied a standard of '`highly
unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation
and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.'' D also claims the Court of
Appeals failed to make an independent de novo review of the entire record and therefore
incorrectly relied on subsidiary facts implicitly established by the jury's verdict instead
of drawing its own inferences from the evidence.
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.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment