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

damagesappealtrial
plaintiffdefendantdamagesattorneylawyerliabilityappealwill

Related Cases

Witty v. American General Capital Distributors, Inc., 727 S.W.2d 503, 55 USLW 2507
View Case »
Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal.App. 285, 297 P. 91
View Case »
Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion Co., 247 Cal.App.2d 774, 56 Cal.Rptr. 128, 29 A.L.R.3d 538
View Case »
Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 16,745, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1133
View Case »
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523, 55 USLW 5092
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sweeney v. Schenectady Union Pub. Co., 122 F.2d 288

Facts

Martin L. Sweeney, a Congressman from Ohio, filed a libel action against the Schenectady Union Publishing Company after they published false statements about him in the 'Schenectady Union Star.' The publication suggested that Sweeney opposed the appointment of a Jewish judge, Emerich Burt Freed, based on Freed's ethnicity and foreign birth. Sweeney claimed that these statements damaged his reputation and standing in the community.

The complaint alleged that the plaintiff, a representative in Congress from Ohio and a lawyer by profession, who was a member of the bar in good standing in the State of Ohio, had been ‘injured in his good name, fame and reputation, in the conduct and execution of his official duties as a duly elected and chosen representative of the people of the State of Ohio in the Congress of the United States, in pursuance of his profession as a practicing attorney in good standing before the Bar in the State of Ohio, in his standing in the community wherein he resides, and in the high regard, respect, confidence and esteem he has hitherto enjoyed among his associates both in the Congress of the United States and in the legal fraternity and elsewhere‘ by the publication by the defendant in a newspaper called the ‘Schenectady Union Star‘ which is widely circulated and read ‘in the State of New York and the states of the United States and among the people thereof‘.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the published statements about Sweeney constituted libel per se, given that no special damages were alleged.

The decisive question to be determined on this appeal is whether or not the publication of such false and unprivileged statements concerning the plaintiff within the last few years in the places as alleged in the complaint may be said as a matter of law not to have created any liability in the absence of special damages.

Rule

Under New York law, a statement is considered libelous per se if it tends to expose an individual to public hatred, shame, or contempt, or induces an evil opinion of them in the minds of right-thinking persons.

The New York law, as stated in Kimmerle v. New York Evening Journal, Inc., 262 N.Y. 99, 186 N.E. 217, 218, makes libelous per se the publication of ‘words which tend to expose one to public hatred, shame, obloquy, contumely, odium, contempt, ridicule, aversion, ostracism, degradation, or disgrace, or to induce an evil opinion of one in the minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive one of their confidence and friendly intercourse in society.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the published statements in the context of New York libel law, determining that the statements attributed to Sweeney could lead reasonable people to believe he was acting out of bigotry and prejudice. The court emphasized that the nature of the statements could damage Sweeney's reputation, as they implied he was opposing Freed's appointment solely based on Freed's Jewish identity.

And certainly the time and place of publication must be given due weight and effect. This plaintiff by being accused of trying to deprive a man of an appointment to public office because, presumably both in race and religion, he was Jewish would, intolerance being what it is, no doubt gain approval and increased respect in some quarters; and in others, where only the hit bird flutters, there would be indifference; but in a country still dedicated to religious and racial freedom decent, liberty-loving people still are present in great numbers and still are greatly offended by the narrow-minded injustice of the bigots who see individuals only en masse and condemn them merely because their ancestors were of a certain race or they themselves are of a certain religion.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the District Court's order and remanded the case for trial, concluding that the complaint was sufficient under New York libel law.

The majority of the court is of the opinion that the complaint is sufficient under the principles above states and that the defendant should be required to meet it on the merits.

Who won?

Martin L. Sweeney prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the published statements were libelous per se and warranted further examination.

The decision herein seems to me not in accordance with New York law, where the right of comment on a public official has been safeguarded in a practical way by ‘a somewhat different rule‘ than in ordinary cases and ‘a clear charge of corruption or gross incompetence holding one up to disgrace and contumely‘ is required; even an imputation of corrupt or dishonorable motives will be justified as fair comment if it is a reasonable inference from the facts.

You must be