At page 990 ed what had actually taken place.” For this reason, the entry of judgment for defendant was proper. Affirmed.2 citing cases
- Seabolt v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 703 F. Supp. 1235 (W.D. Va. 1989).publishedSince truth is “an absolute defense [to a charge of defamation] in almost all cases,” Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 151 , 87 S.Ct. 1975, 1989 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967) (plurality opinion); see also Cox Broadcasting Corp. v.…
- Ruben L. Allman v. Westmoreland Coal Co., Ruben L. Allman v. Westmoreland Coal Co., Inc., 898 F.2d 144 (4th Cir. 1990).unpublishedSee also Pilkenton v. Kingsport Publishing Corp., 395 F.2d 989, 990 (4th Cir.1968); Brown v. Shupe, 629 F.Supp. 760, 760-61 (E.D.Va.1985).
Other citing cases
- Pratt v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 675 F. Supp. 991 (D. Md. 1987).published
v.
PILKENTON, Appellant, v. KINGSPORT PUBLISHING CORPORATION, Appellee
This appeal is from a summary judgment for defendant in a suit for alleged defamation by a newspaper article which described a raid on a barn, the recovery of a quantity of stolen merchandise, and plaintiff’s arrest on a charge of receiving and possessing stolen property.
Our examination of the record discloses some procedural defects in the entry of judgment. We are satisfied, however, that plaintiff was not prejudiced thereby; and in oral argument, plaintiff stated his willingness to have us proceed to the merits of the appeal, rather than to decide it on procedural grounds.
Proceeding, therefore, to the merits, we conclude from our study of the record that the district judge correctly determined that in its publication “defendant merely carried an accurate account of a matter of public interest and concern” and that “[djefendant report[*990] ed what had actually taken place.” For this reason, the entry of judgment for defendant was proper.
Affirmed.