Smith v. Harnish

California Court of Appeal Jan 13, 1959 No. Civ. 5916Published

Before: Shepard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the newspaper articles were not libelous because they did not specifically refer to the plaintiff and constituted protected commentary on a matter of public interest.

Issues

Whether the published articles contained defamatory language specifically applicable to the plaintiff.
Whether the second article constituted actionable libel or protected argument on a matter of public interest.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“An accusation such as that complained of cannot have the quality of a libel unless there be a certainty as to the individuals accused.”

“There is nothing in the published article that makes a personal application to the plaintiff.”

“The trial court likewise held that the article upon which the second count is based is clearly a presentation of a point of view upon an issue that had become one of some public interest”

SHEPARD, J.

This is an action for libel. Plaintiff alleges that defendants falsely and maliciously published of and concerning plaintiff two newspaper articles for the purpose of exposing him to hatred, contempt and ridicule. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal. Plaintiff appeals.

[117]

The first article, insofar as is necessary to understand what is claimed by the plaintiff to be libelous, reads as follows:

“District Court Upholds

“Slander Suit Judgment.

1 ‘ Ontario—The District Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court’s judgment in The Daily Report’s slander suit against Oregon Smith ...”

“The suit grew out of remarks made by Smith in 1953, then an Ontario councilman, that The Daily Report was ‘following a Communist Party line.’

“When the action came to the Superior Court on March 7, 1955, Smith’s attorney . . . argued that ‘the defamatory remarks . . . were made at a legislative proceeding and were therefore fully privileged. ’

“Judge Raymond Thompson . . . concurred . . . and brought a judgment for nonsuit. This was the ruling which has been upheld by the District Court of Appeal. . . .

“The Daily Report had appealed in the belief that, if the decision were allowed to stand, ‘the public would have no protection against malicious statements made by unscrupulous members of any minor legislative body. ’ ”

The second article, insofar as is necessary to understand what is claimed to be libelous, reads as follows:

“UnRridled License

“Does a member of a minor legislative body, such as a city council, have the right to say anything he wishes about anybody in an official proceeding, without regard to the laws of slander ?

“He does indeed!

“The question was one which The Daily Report pursued through the courts of the State of California. The answer was the same from the Superior Court, the District Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court: A councilman is a ‘legislator’ under the law and as such has complete privilege to make any defamatory remarks.

Smith v. Harnish

AI Brief

SHEPARD, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief