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

lawsuitdefendantattorneytrialsummary judgmentrespondentappellant
attorneyrespondentappellant

Related Cases

Kivland v. Columbia Orthopaedic Group, LLP, 331 S.W.3d 299
View Case »
Cosgrove v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 315 Ill.App.3d 651, 734 N.E.2d 155, 248 Ill.Dec. 447
View Case »
Rubanick v. Witco Chemical Corp., 125 N.J. 421, 593 A.2d 733, 60 USLW 2112, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,222
View Case »
Powell v. Flechter, 45 N.Y.St.Rep. 294, 18 N.Y.S. 451
View Case »
Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 153 Ariz. 38, 734 P.2d 580, 43 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 213, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,850, 55 USLW 2490, 1 IER Cases 1571
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Smith v. Maldonado, 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 397, 27 Media L. Rep. 1814, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4007, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5037

Facts

In February 1993, voters in Colma approved an ordinance to permit a card room, leading to controversy and competition among applicants for the permit. Appellants, Donald C. Smith and Thomas G. Atwood, were involved in the application process and were represented by an attorney who was later indicted for attempting to bribe a legislator on their behalf. Respondents, Ron and Helen Maldonado, highlighted a paragraph mentioning the appellants in a truthful newspaper article about the indictment and distributed it to other residents, prompting the defamation lawsuit from the appellants.

In July 1996, appellant' former attorney was indicted on criminal charges of illegally attempting to influence a California legislator on behalf of appellants in their attempt to gain an exclusive card room franchise in Colma, by allegedly seeking the legislator's assistance in preventing Lucky Chances from obtaining the requisite state gaming registration.

Issue

Can a defamatory innuendo be created by the act of 'highlighting' or visibly emphasizing certain selected passages in a concededly truthful and accurate newspaper article?

Can a defamatory innuendo be created by the act of “highlighting” or visibly emphasizing certain selected passages in a concededly truthful and accurate newspaper article?

Rule

Truth is an absolute defense to any libel action, and a truthful statement of fact is not rendered defamatory simply by emphasizing it.

Truth is, of course, an absolute defense to any libel action.

Analysis

The court determined that highlighting a truthful statement does not change its truthfulness or create a defamatory innuendo. The respondents merely emphasized a truthful statement without altering the content of the article, and any implication drawn by third parties was based on the true facts presented in the article.

The record shows the only thing respondents did in this case was to emphasize the truth.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the highlighting of a truthful paragraph did not create a defamatory innuendo and that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

We hold that the mere addition of simple emphasis to an otherwise completely accurate and truthful statement of fact cannot, by itself, create a defamatory innuendo.

Who won?

Respondents prevailed in the case because the court found that the highlighting of a truthful statement did not constitute defamation.

Respondents were not responsible for any written statement or comment themselves, nor did they did rearrange, restate or rephrase the concededly truthful statements in the newspaper article in such a way as to create a false inference or implication.

You must be