Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdamagesappealcorporationpunitive damagescompensatory damages
lawsuitdamagesappealcorporationpunitive damagescompensatory damages

Related Cases

Nelson v. United States, 40 F.4th 1105
View Case »
White v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1963 WL 65912, 7 Fed.R.Serv.2d 363
View Case »
Stadler v. Cross, 295 N.W.2d 552
View Case »
Wiener v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330, 239 N.E.2d 540, 292 N.Y.S.2d 667
View Case »
Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 97 L.Ed.2d 315, 55 USLW 5019, 2 IER Cases 257
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mr. Chow of New York v. Ste. Jour Azur S.A., 759 F.2d 219, 11 Media L. Rep. 1713

Facts

Ste. Jour Azur S.A., a French corporation, published the Gault/Millau Guide to New York, which included a review of Mr. Chow, a Chinese restaurant in New York City. The review, written by journalist Yves Bridault, criticized various aspects of the restaurant's food and service. Following the publication, Mr. Chow, the joint venture that owned the restaurant, filed a lawsuit claiming that the review contained false and defamatory statements. A jury found in favor of Mr. Chow, awarding him $20,000 in compensatory damages and $5 in punitive damages.

Ste. Jour Azur S.A., a French corporation, published the Gault/Millau Guide to New York, which included a review of Mr. Chow, a Chinese restaurant in New York City. The review, written by journalist Yves Bridault, criticized various aspects of the restaurant's food and service. Following the publication, Mr. Chow, the joint venture that owned the restaurant, filed a lawsuit claiming that the review contained false and defamatory statements. A jury found in favor of Mr. Chow, awarding him $20,000 in compensatory damages and $5 in punitive damages.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the statements made in the restaurant review were protected opinions under the First Amendment and whether Mr. Chow, as a public figure, could prove actual malice.

The main legal issues were whether the statements made in the restaurant review were protected opinions under the First Amendment and whether Mr. Chow, as a public figure, could prove actual malice.

Rule

The court applied the principle that statements of opinion are generally protected by the First Amendment, and that a public figure must prove actual malice to succeed in a libel claim.

The court applied the principle that statements of opinion are generally protected by the First Amendment, and that a public figure must prove actual malice to succeed in a libel claim.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statements made in the review, determining that five of the six contested statements were expressions of opinion rather than factual assertions. The only statement that could be considered factual was regarding the serving of Peking Duck in one dish instead of the traditional three. However, even if this statement was deemed defamatory, the court found that Mr. Chow did not provide clear and convincing evidence of actual malice, which is required for a public figure to prevail in a libel case.

The court analyzed the statements made in the review, determining that five of the six contested statements were expressions of opinion rather than factual assertions. The only statement that could be considered factual was regarding the serving of Peking Duck in one dish instead of the traditional three. However, even if this statement was deemed defamatory, the court found that Mr. Chow did not provide clear and convincing evidence of actual malice, which is required for a public figure to prevail in a libel case.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment in favor of Mr. Chow and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint, concluding that the majority of the statements were protected opinions and that Mr. Chow failed to establish actual malice.

The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment in favor of Mr. Chow and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint, concluding that the majority of the statements were protected opinions and that Mr. Chow failed to establish actual malice.

Who won?

Ste. Jour Azur S.A. prevailed in the case because the court determined that the majority of the statements in the review were protected opinions and that Mr. Chow did not prove actual malice.

Ste. Jour Azur S.A. prevailed in the case because the court determined that the majority of the statements in the review were protected opinions and that Mr. Chow did not prove actual malice.

You must be