libel claim in Massachusetts

2012Defamation To prevail on a libel claim, a plaintiff must ordinarily establish that the defendant published a written statement of and concerning the plaintiff, that was both defamatory and false, 3 aind either caused economic loss or is actionable without proof of economic loss. 4 Stanton v. Metro Corp., 438 F.3d 119, 124 (1st Cir. 2006), citing White v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., 442 Mass. 64, 66 (2004).

2007To prevail on the libel claim, Visnick must prove that “the defendant was at fault for the publication of a false statement regarding the plaintiff, capable of damaging the plaintiffs reputation in the community, which either caused economic loss or is actionable without proof of economic loss.” White v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., 442 Mass. 64, 66 (2004).

2009Before trial, the judge allowed Astra’s motion for summary judgment on Bildman’s claims for negligent libel, malicious libel, and libel per se based on various statements published by Astra, Johansson, and Mogren from April 29, 1996, through June 26, 1996. 41 Bildman ascribes error only to the judge’s ruling that he was a “limited purpose public figure” and thus unable to sustain a libel claim absent clear and convincing proof of “actual malice,” that is, that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for whether it was false. 42 See New York Times v. Su

1984Council, 422 F.2d 309, 312-313 (8th Cir. 1970). 3 We come then to the question whether, on what was before the motion judge, there was a dispute as to the material fact, essential to proof of the plaintiff’s libel claim, whether the defendants made any statement “with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-280 (1964).

1995See Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56 (1988).

1989See Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

2024Of course, the judge can require the parties to provide a witness list identifying all potential witnesses and the parties may subpoena witnesses to testify at trial. 7 Kearney told the judge that he intended to move for summary judgment on the ground that the statement at issue in the remaining libel claim included the word "alleged[ly]." We note that that issue was litigated in Waters I and the defendants lost. 4 Mass. App. Ct. 1208 , 1209 (1989) ("Courts have inherent power to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution"; those decisions are within "sound discretion of the judge"); Munshani v. S

2024A libel claim requires a showing of "false and defamatory written communication of and concerning the plaintiff." McAvoy v. Shufrin, 401 Mass. 593, 597 (1988).

2024A libel claim requires a showing of "false and defamatory written communication of and concerning the plaintiff." McAvoy v. Shufrin, 401 Mass. 593, 597 (1988).

2012Defamation To prevail on a libel claim, a plaintiff must ordinarily establish that the defendant published a written statement of and concerning the plaintiff, that was both defamatory and false, 3 aind either caused economic loss or is actionable without proof of economic loss. 4 Stanton v. Metro Corp., 438 F.3d 119, 124 (1st Cir. 2006), citing White v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., 442 Mass. 64, 66 (2004).

2009See also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351 (1974) (describing limited purpose public figure); Jones v. Taibbi, 400 Mass. 786, 797-798 (1987) (same).

2009See also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351 (1974) (describing limited purpose public figure); Jones v. Taibbi, 400 Mass. 786, 797-798 (1987) (same).

1988Judgments affirmed. 1 The plaintiff stated at trial that he had never threatened the defendant. 2 The defendant argues, and the plaintiff apparently concedes, that the gravamen of the plaintiff’s libel claim was this sentence. 3 Although we have some doubt that the office of constable in Massachusetts constitutes that of a “public official” within the meaning of New York Times Co. and its progeny, see Stone v. Essex County Newspapers, Inc., 367 Mass. 849, 863-864 (1975), it appears that the plaintiff did not contest the judge’s ruling at trial and does not do so on appeal, so we do not reach t

1984Council, 422 F.2d 309, 312-313 (8th Cir. 1970). 3 We come then to the question whether, on what was before the motion judge, there was a dispute as to the material fact, essential to proof of the plaintiff’s libel claim, whether the defendants made any statement “with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-280 (1964).