Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Police Chief’s Defamation Claims Linked to True Crime PodcastKevin T. Shook
The court of appeals affirmed that plaintiff lacked evidence of actual malice and also found certain statements were not actionable under Ohio’s innocent construction rule.
Court Dismissed Defamation Case Arising from Environmental Advocacy Group’s Campaign to Protect Canadian ForestsChelsea Kelly and Laura Handman
After seven years of litigation, court ruled that defendants had not acted with actual malice and dismissed the case in full.
Judge Reed’s decision is especially important for reporters who have sources with NDAs.
A California court revived a defamation claim against U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters in May, holding that her 2020 GOP opponent provided sufficient evidence that she acted with actual malice in making allegedly false statements about his military record.
In a 74-page decision, the court dismissed all defamation and defamation per se claims against Davis for insufficient evidence of actual malice.
The court’s decision significantly strengthens arguments for defendants to recover fees under the District’s anti-SLAPP law, including the fees they expend in litigating entitlement to fees.
The Arizona Supreme Court has issued a ringing endorsement for the safeguards provided to opinions and political speech in a defamation case involving a local radio talk show host.
The judge’s decision to dismiss any argument based on the neutral reportage privilege was a lost opportunity. It could have corrected one of the few areas where good journalism and the law diverge.
Ruling on a motion to dismiss, Judge Pitman held that an article’s characterizations of plaintiff as a “Jan. 6 Capitol riot organizer” and a person who “helped coordinate the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection” were capable of being proven true or false, and therefore actionable in defamation, and that Bostic adequately pleaded the defendants published them…