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

plaintiffdefendant

plaintiffdefendantplea

Related Cases

Ostrowe v. Lee, nan

Facts

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant composed a letter accusing him of larceny, which was dictated to a stenographer who transcribed it and sent it to the plaintiff. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that a similar defamatory statement was made over the phone. The defendant conceded that the second cause of action for slander was valid, but contested whether the first cause of action for libel was sufficiently stated.

In the first, the plaintiff charges that the defendant composed a letter accusing the plaintiff of the crime of larceny; that he dictated this letter to his stenographer; that the stenographer, in obedience to his orders, read the notes and transcribed them; and that the letter so transcribed was received by the plaintiff through the mails.

Issue

Does the complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action?

Rule

In the law of defamation, publication occurs when a defamatory writing is read by anyone other than the person defamed. A writing is considered published if it has been read and understood at the behest of the defamer.

A defamatory writing is not published if it is read by no one but the one defamed. Published it is, however, as soon as read by any one else.

Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of publication in defamation cases, emphasizing that a writing is published when it is read by someone other than the defamed individual. The court noted that the stenographer, acting under the direction of the defendant, effectively published the defamatory content when transcribing and reading the notes. The court rejected the argument that the act of dictation and transcription did not constitute publication, asserting that the defamer's intent and the act of reading the notes by the stenographer fulfilled the requirements for libel.

The legal consequence is not altered where the symbols reproduced or interpreted are the notes of a stenographer.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the complaint was sufficient to state a cause of action for libel and affirmed the order of the lower court.

The order should be affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered ‘yes.’

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the case because the court found that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action for libel, allowing the case to proceed.

The plaintiff charges malice, and privilege is a defense to be pleaded and proved.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Cohen v. Smith, 269 Ill.App.3d 1087, 648 N.E.2d 329, 207 Ill.Dec. 873

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 711, 44 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 486

Sibbing v. Cave, 922 N.E.2d 594

Michaud v. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp., 715 A.2d 955, 1998 ME 213

Dickinson v. Edwards, 105 Wash.2d 457, 716 P.2d 814