publication rule in Texas

2015Relying in large part on the Fifth Circuit’s analysis in Bi-Weekly Administration, Inc. v. Belo Corp., 512 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2007), the Mayfield court noted that every court that had decided the issue to date had held the single publication rule applied to information publicly available on the internet.

2014Relying in large part on the Fifth Circuit’s analysis in Bi-Weekly Administration, Inc. v. Belo Corp., 512 F.3d 137 (5th Cir.2007), the Mayfield court noted that every court that had decided the issue to date had held the single publication rule applied to information publicly available on the internet.

2019Under that rule, a cause of action accrues "on the last day of the mass distribution of the printed matter containing the defamatory statement," which is when "the publisher of the statement has made the libelous matter available to his intended audience." Id. ; see also Holloway v. Butler , 662 S.W.2d 688 , 692 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (explaining that the single publication rule "applies strictly to multiple copies of a libelous article published as part of a single printing"); cf. Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc. , 124 S.W.3d 167 , 173 (Tex. 2003) (no

2000Baylor argues that the single publication rule should apply to it because once it made its report, it “relinquished all right of control, title, and interest in the printed matter.” See Holloway, 662 S.W.2d at 692 .

2015See Mayfield v. Fullhart, 444 S.W.3d 222 , 228–30 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. filed).

2015Mayfield, 444 S.W.3d at 229 .

2014See Holloway v. Butler, 662 S.W.2d 688, 690-91 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, writ refd n.r.e.); see also Williamson v. New Times, Inc., 980 S.W.2d 706, 710 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).

2000See Williamson v. New Times, Inc., 980 S.W.2d 706, 710 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.); Holloway v. Butler, 662 S.W.2d 688, 692 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

2024In Glassdoor, the court held that “the single publication rule applies to information made publicly available on the –11– internet.” Id.

2019Under that rule, a cause of action accrues "on the last day of the mass distribution of the printed matter containing the defamatory statement," which is when "the publisher of the statement has made the libelous matter available to his intended audience." Id. ; see also Holloway v. Butler , 662 S.W.2d 688 , 692 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (explaining that the single publication rule "applies strictly to multiple copies of a libelous article published as part of a single printing"); cf. Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc. , 124 S.W.3d 167 , 173 (Tex. 2003) (no

2019Under that rule, a cause of action accrues "on the last day of the mass distribution of the printed matter containing the defamatory statement," which is when "the publisher of the statement has made the libelous matter available to his intended audience." Id. ; see also Holloway v. Butler , 662 S.W.2d 688 , 692 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (explaining that the single publication rule "applies strictly to multiple copies of a libelous article published as part of a single printing"); cf. Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc. , 124 S.W.3d 167 , 173 (Tex. 2003) (no

2012However, the single publication rule is limited to mass media torts and “is clearly designed to protect publishers from repeated liability.” Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc. , 124 S.W.3d 167, 173 (Tex. 2003).

2023See Rincones, 520 S.W.3d at 583 (noting that court of appeals misconstrued self-defamation 14 as an independent cause of action but that “it is probably better understood as an exception to the publication requirement of a standard defamation claim” and “modifies a plaintiff’s burden on [that] element”); Stephens, 924 S.W.2d at 770 (concluding that plaintiff’s subsequent self-publication of statement “might be relevant to mitigation of damages” but did not bar slander suit based on defendant’s original publication to third parties).

2015See Hancock, 400 S.W.3d at 65 n.7. 18 In contrast to the continuous publication rule, the single publication rule provides that a libel action accrues for limitations purposes upon publication which is complete on the last day of mass distribution of copies of the printed matter and rejects the principle that a new publication, and therefore a separate tort, is created each time the material is sold.

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014Although we are not bound by the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of Texas law, see Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williams, 868 S.W.2d 294, 296 (Tex.1998) Longview Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat’l Bank of Azle, 750 S.W.2d 297, 800 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1988, no pet.), or its predictions about what rule The Supreme Court of Texas likely would apply, we agree with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning and hold that the single publication rule applies to a television station’s news report publicly available on the internet.

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014Although we are not bound by the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of Texas law, see Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williams, 868 S.W.2d 294, 296 (Tex.1998) Longview Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat’l Bank of Azle, 750 S.W.2d 297, 800 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1988, no pet.), or its predictions about what rule The Supreme Court of Texas likely would apply, we agree with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning and hold that the single publication rule applies to a television station’s news report publicly available on the internet.

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2014See id. at 144 (citing, e.g., Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir.2006); Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., 325 F.3d 87, 89 (2nd Cir.2003); Mitan v. Davis, 243 F.Supp.2d 719, 724 (W.D.Ky.2003); Churchill v. State, 378 N.J.Super. 471 , 876 A.2d 311, 316 (2005); McCandliss v. Cox Enters., 265 Ga.App. 377 , 593 S.E.2d 856, 858 (2004); Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392 , 13 Cal. Rptr.3d 353, 361-62 (2004); Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 , 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 , 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (2002)). 6 With respect to the second factor, the Fifth Circuit relie

2000Hyde v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 861 F.2d 446, 450 (5th.

1994Fisher, Jr., Note, Renwick v. News & Observer Publishing Co.: North Carolina Rejects the False Light Invasion of Privacy Tort, 63 N.C.L.Rev. 767, 776 n. 73 (1985); compare Restatement (Second) of Torts § 563 (1977) (stating that the publication requirement in defamation only requires dissemination to a third party) with Moore v. Big Picture Co., 828 F.2d 270, 274 (5th Cir.1987) (noting that false light requires widespread publicity).

1994Fisher, Jr., Note, Renwick v. News & Observer Publishing Co.: North Carolina Rejects the False Light Invasion of Privacy Tort, 63 N.C.L.REV. 767, 776 n. 73 (1985); compare RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 563 (1977) (stating that the publication requirement in defamation only requires dissemination to a third party) with Moore v. Big Picture Co., 828 F.2d 270, 274 (5th Cir. 1987) (noting that false light requires widespread publicity).

1990See Robinson v. State, 143 S.W.2d 629 , 633 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1940, writ dism'd, judgm't cor.). 2 The statute requires publication "at least once a week," unlike similar statutes that limit the publication requirement to "once a week for two consecutive weeks." See, e.g., Local Gov't Code §§ 271.055 (b)(1) (public works contracts paid out of certificates of obligation), 252.041(a) (municipal contracts).

1986General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Howard, 474 S.W.2d 929, 933 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1971), aff'd, 487 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.1972).