PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. HEPPS 475 U.S. 767 (1986). CASE BRIEF

PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. HEPPS

475 U.S. 767 (1986).

NATURE OF THE CASE: Philadelphia Newspapers (D) appealed a reversal by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of a trial court's decision to place the burden to prove falsity on a private plaintiff in a matter of public concern in Hepps' (P) suit for defamation.

FACTS: P is the principal stockholder of General Programming, Inc. (GPI), a corporation that franchises a chain of stores - known at the relevant time as 'Thrifty' stores - selling beer, soft drinks, and snacks. D owns the Philadelphia Inquirer which published a series of articles, authored by William Ecenbarger (D1) and William Lambert (D1), containing the statements that Ps had links to organized crime and used some of those links to influence the State's governmental processes, both legislative and administrative. The stories reported that federal 'investigators have found connections between Thrifty and underworld figures,' that 'the Thrifty Beverage beer chain . . . had connections . . . with organized crime,' ; and that Thrifty had 'won a series of competitive advantages through rulings by the State Liquor Control Board,' A grand jury was said to be investigating the 'alleged relationship between the Thrifty chain and known Mafia figures,' and '[w]hether the chain received special treatment from the [state Governor's] administration and the Liquor Control Board.' Ps sued for defamation. Pennsylvania required a private figure who brings a suit for defamation to bear the burden of proving negligence or malice by the defendant in publishing the statements at issue. As to falsity, Pennsylvania followed the common law's presumption that an individual's reputation is a good one. Statements defaming that person are therefore presumptively false, although a publisher who bears the burden of proving the truth of the statements has an absolute defense. The jury found for D. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that D had the burden of proving the truth of the statements because it did not unconstitutionally inhibit free debate. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

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