NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99-2 (2026)

Effect of publication or broadcast in good faith and retraction

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Oct. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 99 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If it appears upon the trial that said article was published in good faith, that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts, and that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article were true, and that within 10 days after the service of said notice a full and fair correction, apology and retraction was published in the same editions or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical in which said article appeared, and in as conspicuous place and type as was said original article, then the plaintiff in such case, if a civil action, shall recover only actual damages, and if, in a criminal proceeding, a verdict of "guilty" is rendered on such a state of facts, the defendant shall be fined a penny and the costs, and no more.

(b) If it appears upon the trial that such words or acts were conveyed and broadcast in good faith, that their falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts, or without prior knowledge or approval of such station, and if with prior knowledge or approval that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the words or acts were true, and that within 10 days after the service of said notice a full and fair correction, apology and retraction was conveyed or broadcast by or over such radio or television station at approximately the same time of day and by the same sending power so as to be as visible and audible as the original acts or words complained of, then the plaintiff in such case, if a civil action, shall recover only actual damages, and if, in a criminal proceeding, a verdict of "guilty" is rendered on such state of facts, the defendant shall be fined a penny and costs, and no more. (1901, c. 557; Rev., s. 2013; C.S., s. 2430; 1943, c. 238, s. 2.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2005–2005 · leading case: Neill Grading & Constr. Co. v. Lingafelt, 606 S.E.2d 734 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).
Neill Grading & Constr. Co. v. Lingafelt, 606 S.E.2d 734 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” In the alternative, defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of compensatory and punitive damages, claiming that no factual basis had been alleged upon which compensatory damages could be found, and that punitive damages are barred as a matter of law where…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.