York Times standard in Louisiana

1978The Gertz court, through Justice Powell, noted that under Metromedia and prior decisions, "a private citizen involuntarily associated with a matter of general interest has no recourse for injury to his reputation unless he can satisfy the demanding requirements of the New York Times test." Id., 418 U.S. at 337 , 94 S.Ct. at 3006 .

1975Finally, in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), in a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court announced that the New York Times privilege extended to defamatory falsehood relating to private individuals if the statements concerned matters of general or public interest.

1988Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339 , 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3006 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), a case which refined the New York Times standard in certain respects not pertinent here, strongly implied that the First Amendment also protects assertions of opinion.

1988Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339 , 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3006 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), a case which refined the New York Times standard in certain respects not pertinent here, strongly implied that the First Amendment also protects assertions of opinion.

1988When the defendant moves for summary judgment in a case covered by the New York Times standard, "the appropriate summary judgment question will be whether the evidence in the record could support a reasonable jury finding either that the plaintiff has shown actual malice by clear and convincing evidence or that the plaintiff has not." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 , 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). [3] 514 So.2d 118 (La.1987). [4] 526 So.2d 1174 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1988). [5] 528 So.2d 152 (La.1988). [6] Although this case involves a public figure plaintiff, Mashburn

1988When the defendant moves for summary judgment in a case covered by the New York Times standard, "the appropriate summary judgment question will be whether the evidence in the record could support a reasonable jury finding either that the plaintiff has shown actual malice by clear and convincing evidence or that the plaintiff has not." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 , 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). [3] 514 So.2d 118 (La.1987). [4] 526 So.2d 1174 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1988). [5] 528 So.2d 152 (La.1988). [6] Although this case involves a public figure plaintiff, Mashburn

2017The Louisiana State Supreme Court in Romero, 648 So.2d at 869-70 , (emphasis added) also explained: Actual malice is demonstrated by a false statement made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, There is authority for applying the New York Times rule when an article concerns public issues, even though the plaintiff is a private person.

1995See e.g., Garrison v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 , 85 S.Ct. 209 , 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964) (district court judges filed suit against district attorney based on his disparaging remarks about their judicial conduct); Bienvenu v. Angelle, 254 La. 182 , 223 So.2d 140 (1969) (plaintiff sued state legislator for allegedly defamatory statements made in an attempt to block her appointment as Parish Director of Public Welfare); Hicks v. Stone, 425 So.2d 807 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 429 So.2d 129 (La.1983) (former dean of state university sued university president and board of supervisor

1995See e.g., Garrison v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 , 85 S.Ct. 209 , 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964) (district court judges filed suit against district attorney based on his disparaging remarks about their judicial conduct); Bienvenu v. Angelle, 254 La. 182 , 223 So.2d 140 (1969) (plaintiff sued state legislator for allegedly defamatory statements made in an attempt to block her appointment as Parish Director of Public Welfare); Hicks v. Stone, 425 So.2d 807 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 429 So.2d 129 (La.1983) (former dean of state university sued university president and board of supervisor

1995In Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 , 86 S.Ct. 669, 676 , 15 L.Ed.2d 597 (1966), the Court concluded that "the `public official' designation applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs." The Court stated that the New York Times standard applies when a plaintiff holds a governmental position that invites public scrutiny and discussion and "has such apparent importance that the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performanc

1995In Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 , 86 S.Ct. 669, 676 , 15 L.Ed.2d 597 (1966), the Court concluded that "the `public official' designation applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs." The Court stated that the New York Times standard applies when a plaintiff holds a governmental position that invites public scrutiny and discussion and "has such apparent importance that the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performanc

1995See e.g., Garrison v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 , 85 S.Ct. 209 , 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964) (district court judges filed suit against district attorney based on his disparaging remarks about their judicial conduct); Bienvenu v. Angelle, 254 La. 182 , 223 So.2d 140 (1969) (plaintiff sued state legislator for allegedly defamatory statements made in an attempt to block her appointment as Parish Director of Public Welfare); Hicks v. Stone, 425 So.2d 807 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 429 So.2d 129 (La.1983) (former dean of state university sued university president and board of supervisor

1995See e.g., Garrison v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 , 85 S.Ct. 209 , 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964) (district court judges filed suit against district attorney based on his disparaging remarks about their judicial conduct); Bienvenu v. Angelle, 254 La. 182 , 223 So.2d 140 (1969) (plaintiff sued state legislator for allegedly defamatory statements made in an attempt to block her appointment as Parish Director of Public Welfare); Hicks v. Stone, 425 So.2d 807 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 429 So.2d 129 (La.1983) (former dean of state university sued university president and board of supervisor

1995See e.g., Garrison v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 , 85 S.Ct. 209 , 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964) (district court judges filed suit against district attorney based on his disparaging remarks about their judicial conduct); Bienvenu v. Angelle, 254 La. 182 , 223 So.2d 140 (1969) (plaintiff sued state legislator for allegedly defamatory statements made in an attempt to block her appointment as Parish Director of Public Welfare); Hicks v. Stone, 425 So.2d 807 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 429 So.2d 129 (La.1983) (former dean of state university sued university president and board of supervisor

1988When the defendant moves for summary judgment in a case covered by the New York Times standard, "the appropriate summary judgment question will be whether the evidence in the record could support a reasonable jury finding either that the plaintiff has shown actual malice by clear and convincing evidence or that the plaintiff has not." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 , 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). [3] 514 So.2d 118 (La.1987). [4] 526 So.2d 1174 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1988). [5] 528 So.2d 152 (La.1988). [6] Although this case involves a public figure plaintiff, Mashburn

1988When the defendant moves for summary judgment in a case covered by the New York Times standard, "the appropriate summary judgment question will be whether the evidence in the record could support a reasonable jury finding either that the plaintiff has shown actual malice by clear and convincing evidence or that the plaintiff has not." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 , 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). [3] 514 So.2d 118 (La.1987). [4] 526 So.2d 1174 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1988). [5] 528 So.2d 152 (La.1988). [6] Although this case involves a public figure plaintiff, Mashburn

1988When the defendant moves for summary judgment in a case covered by the New York Times standard, "the appropriate summary judgment question will be whether the evidence in the record could support a reasonable jury finding either that the plaintiff has shown actual malice by clear and convincing evidence or that the plaintiff has not." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 , 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). [3] 514 So.2d 118 (La.1987). [4] 526 So.2d 1174 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1988). [5] 528 So.2d 152 (La.1988). [6] Although this case involves a public figure plaintiff, Mashburn

1985In Wattigny v. Lambert, 453 So.2d 1272 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1984), involving a public figure (father of the plaintiff in the first Wattigny case), it was held that the New York Times standard has equal application whether the defendant is a member of the media or not, and the U.S. Supreme Court makes no distinction between freedom of speech and the press.

1984In Avins v. White, supra, the court stated: "Nor does the narrow audience in which the alleged defamatory statement was published persuade us that the New York Times privilege should not be extended to a person in White's position.

1980Although Johnson concedes that states now may apply their own standards with regard to defamation, subject to the limitations set out in Gertz, supra, he argues that the courts of this state have applied the New York Times rule to private persons who are involved in an event of public or general concern, citing Francis v. Lake Charles American Press, 262 La. 875 , 265 So.2d 206 (La.1972); and Wilson v. Capitol City Press, 315 So.2d 393 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1975).

1980Although Johnson concedes that states now may apply their own standards with regard to defamation, subject to the limitations set out in Gertz, supra, he argues that the courts of this state have applied the New York Times rule to private persons who are involved in an event of public or general concern, citing Francis v. Lake Charles American Press, 262 La. 875 , 265 So.2d 206 (La.1972); and Wilson v. Capitol City Press, 315 So.2d 393 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1975).

1980Although Johnson concedes that states now may apply their own standards with regard to defamation, subject to the limitations set out in Gertz, supra, he argues that the courts of this state have applied the New York Times rule to private persons who are involved in an event of public or general concern, citing Francis v. Lake Charles American Press, 262 La. 875 , 265 So.2d 206 (La.1972); and Wilson v. Capitol City Press, 315 So.2d 393 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1975).

1978Mashburn also noted: "We conclude, therefore, that the First Amendment freedoms as defined by the New York Times-Gertz series of decisions afford[s], at the very least, a defense against defamation actions for expressions of opinion about matters of public concern made without knowing or reckless falsity". 355 So.2d 879, 885 .

1978Interpreting the United States Supreme Court decisions in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), our Supreme Court stated in Mashburn : "In the Gertz decision it is strongly indicated that the Court, in relaxing the stringent test of the New York Times rule in cases brought by private individuals, was speaking in terms only of libelous misstatements of fact, and that mere comment or opinion on public matters, even though defamatory, enjoys the unqualified protecti

1978Interpreting the United States Supreme Court decisions in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), our Supreme Court stated in Mashburn : "In the Gertz decision it is strongly indicated that the Court, in relaxing the stringent test of the New York Times rule in cases brought by private individuals, was speaking in terms only of libelous misstatements of fact, and that mere comment or opinion on public matters, even though defamatory, enjoys the unqualified protecti

1977We have reviewed the evidence, first, as a reviewing court, to see if the jury committed manifest error in reaching its verdict; and secondly, as a reconsidering court directed by Gonzales v. Xerox Corporation, 320 So.2d 163 (La.1975), to examine the evidence as a trier of fact, in order to render a judgment based on the record.

1977If the evidence, so considered, measures up to the New York Times standard, the case is one for the jury, and it is error to grant a directed verdict, as the trial judge did in this case." We also find the language of Whitaker v. Coleman, 115 F.2d 305 (C.A. 5 1940), particularly applicable to a case of this nature: "Summary judgment procedure is not a catch penny contrivance to take unwary litigants into its toils and deprive them of a trial, it is a liberal measure, liberally designed for arriving at the truth.

1977We are, of course, mindful that "in order for there to be a free and vigorous press it must have `breathing space' between the First Amendment on the one hand, and libel actions, on the other hand." See Carey v. Hume, 390 F.Supp. 1026 (U.S. D.C., D.C., 1975).

1977In Carson v. Allied News Company, 529 F.2d 206 (C.A. 7 1976), the court commented: "`Actual malice' has become a term of art to provide a convenient shorthand for the New York Times standard of liability.

1975Defendant cites the following cases which have continued to follow Rosenbloom after the decision in Gertz : Walker v. Colorado Springs Sun, Inc., 538 P.2d 450 (Colo.1975); Aafco Heating and Air Conditioning Co. v. Northwest Pub., Inc., 321 N.E.2d 580 (Ind.App. 3rd Dist. 1974); Safarets, Inc. v. Gannet Co., Inc. 361 N.Y.S.2d 276 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1974).

1975Defendant cites the following cases which have continued to follow Rosenbloom after the decision in Gertz : Walker v. Colorado Springs Sun, Inc., 538 P.2d 450 (Colo.1975); Aafco Heating and Air Conditioning Co. v. Northwest Pub., Inc., 321 N.E.2d 580 (Ind.App. 3rd Dist. 1974); Safarets, Inc. v. Gannet Co., Inc. 361 N.Y.S.2d 276 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1974).

1975Defendant cites the following cases which have continued to follow Rosenbloom after the decision in Gertz : Walker v. Colorado Springs Sun, Inc., 538 P.2d 450 (Colo.1975); Aafco Heating and Air Conditioning Co. v. Northwest Pub., Inc., 321 N.E.2d 580 (Ind.App. 3rd Dist. 1974); Safarets, Inc. v. Gannet Co., Inc. 361 N.Y.S.2d 276 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1974).