In an action for a libel or a slander, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory. Proof of the truth thereof shall be a complete defense. In all such actions any mitigating circumstances may be proved to reduce damages.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Francis, 75 Ohio St. 3d 433 (Ohio 1996).
Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Francis, 75 Ohio St. 3d 433 (Ohio 1996). “However, the matter at issue is not the amount that was actually taken by Francis but, rather, whether Francis misappropriated certain funds from the partnership.”
Driscoll v. Block, 210 N.E.2d 899 (Ohio Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 6דSection 2739.02, Revised Code, provides that in such an action the defendant may allege and prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory.”
Gosden v. Louis, 687 N.E.2d 481 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). “R.C. 2739.02. Defendants in this case have argued that evidence of reputation must be allowed because damages in a libel action are for injury to reputation, and someone with a bad reputation would have been injured less by a particular defamatory statement than someone with a…”
Piro v. Franklin Twp., 656 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “Assuming that this implication is true, Piro still cannot prove any set of facts showing that he was defamed by Davidson.”
Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Soc. Natl. Bank, 1996 Ohio 194 (Ohio 1996). “{¶ 47} However, the matter at issue is not the amount that was actually taken by Francis but, rather, whether Francis misappropriated certain funds from the partnership.”
Embers Supper Club, Inc. v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 457 N.E.2d 1164 (Ohio 1984). “* * *” Here, the evidence revealed that the newscasts were substantiated by testimony adduced during the plaintiff’s case that the police raid resulted in the seizure of the Daily Racing Form; the Kentucky Sports bulletin, a trade publication of entries and scratches at…”
McPeek v. Leetonia Italian-Am. Club, 882 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “2d 1014 ; R.C. 2739.02. {¶ 10} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that there is a qualified-privilege defense to a claim of defamation in instances when the defamatory statement is fairly made during the course of one’s own affairs and the statement is made regarding matters…”
Bukowski v. Hall, 165 F. Supp. 2d 674 (N.D. Ohio 2001). · cites it 2ד2d 903 , 906 (1991); Ohio Rev.Code § 2739.02 (1994) (“In an action for a libel or a slander, .”
Concrete Creations & Landscape Design L.L.C. v. Wilkinson, 2021 Ohio 2508 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “2d 1074 (1996), citing R.C. 2739.02. {¶29} Furthermore, as the Dale Court pointed out, former law holding a defendant strictly liable for publishing certain defamatory statements (unless he could prove privilege or truth) has been substantially altered due to First Amendment…”
Jacobs v. Budak, 805 N.E.2d 111 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “R.C. 2739.02 states: ‘In an action for a libel or a slander, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory.”
Reyes v. Wilson Mem'l Hosp., 102 F. Supp. 2d 798 (S.D. Ohio 1998). “Code § 2739.02 ("Proof of the truth [of the matter charged] shall be.”
Douglas Elec. Corp. v. Grace, 590 N.E.2d 363 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “See, also, R.C. 2739.02, which seems to set up truth as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander.”
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.