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

precedentappealsummary judgmentoverruledrespondent
damagesappealoverruledcommon law

Related Cases

Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783
View Case »
Harris-Fields v. Syze, 461 Mich. 188, 600 N.W.2d 611
View Case »
Moeller v. Fleming, 136 Cal.App.3d 241, 186 Cal.Rptr. 24
View Case »
DeBusscher v. Sam’s East, Inc., 505 F.3d 475
View Case »
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284, 42 Media L. Rep. 1186, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 500, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 627
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ollman v. Evans, 471 U.S. 1127, 105 S.Ct. 2662 (Mem), 86 L.Ed.2d 278, 24 Ed. Law Rep. 1114, 11 Media L. Rep. 2015

Facts

Petitioner was appointed to a position at the University of Maryland, but his appointment was controversial due to his political beliefs. After his appointment was overruled by the University President, nationally syndicated columnists published an article that included statements about petitioner’s scholarly work and professional status. Petitioner subsequently sued for libel, but the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents.

In The committee's recommendation proved to be highly controversial, largely because petitioner was an avowed Marxist. Petitioner's appointment was approved by the Provost of the University and the Chancellor of the College Park Campus, but was eventually overruled by the President of the University.

Issue

Whether the statements made by the columnists about petitioner constituted defamation under the First Amendment.

The Court of Appeals rested its decision entirely on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and held that this statement about petitioner-that he had no status within his profession-could simply not form the basis of an action for defamation in the light of that Amendment.

Rule

The Court of Appeals held that statements about a person's professional status could not be actionable as defamation under the First Amendment, particularly when they are deemed to be opinions rather than facts.

At the heart of the common law of defamation were a few areas of expression which even when spoken rather than written were regarded as so damaging as to be classified as 'slander per se' and therefore not to require the proof of any special damages in order to allow recovery.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statements made by the columnists, determining that they were protected under the First Amendment as expressions of opinion. The majority opinion relied on the precedent set in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., asserting that there is no such thing as a false idea under the First Amendment, and that the marketplace of ideas is the appropriate venue for addressing such opinions.

But for nationally syndicated columnists to quote an unnamed political scientist as saying that petitioner has 'no status within the profession' is far more than the mere statements of opinion traditionally protected by qualified privilege under the common law of libel.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's summary judgment in favor of the respondents, concluding that the statements made were not actionable as defamation.

I would grant the petition for certiorari in this case.

Who won?

Respondents prevailed in the case because the court found that the statements made were protected by the First Amendment and could not be considered defamatory.

The Court of Appeals majority relied upon a brief passage from our opinion in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-340, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3006-07, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974).

You must be