Week 3 Monday Discussion

2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great

New Yorker Magazine it states that there must be clear intent to tarnish one’s reputation in order for libel tort law to come into effect. This case was very similar in regards that there was enough evidence that suggest there was intent to hurt the reputation of those mentioned in the articles. Also in the case Anderson v. Liberty Lobby it states the plaintiff must be able to prove that there was in fact damage done to one’s reputation and be able to proof to judges that there was actual malice. As with this case, the court of appeals must take in consideration if the ruling can be made in favor of the plaintiff and that if the summary judgement would go in favor of the plaintiff. The judges want to make sure that they are not wasting time and that there was actual damage done to the plaintiff which can be awarded for punitive

IV. Issues: (1) Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech prohibit public figures from recovering damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

The Plaintiff, Sullivan sued the defendant, the New York Times Co. for printing an advertisement about the civil rights movement in the south and defamed the plaintiff. The Plaintiff was one of three Commissioners of Montgomery, Alabama, who claimed that he was defamed in a full-page ad taken out in the New York Times. The advertisement was entitled, “Heed Their Rising Voices” and it charged in part that a new wave of terror had been directed against those who participated in the civil rights movement in the South. Some of the details of the advertisement were false. Although the advertisement did not mention the Plaintiff by name, he claimed that it referred to him indirectly because he had failed to notice responsibility of the police.

If you were a Member of Congress (or a senior staff member of one), what additional statutory authorities/legislation would you propose, and why, to enable homeland security officials (at any level of government) to function more effectively? From which perspective or research (refer to course readings) would you base your proposal to substantiate it beyond political opinion?

12. New York Times v Sullivan (502)- First off you need to know that libel is the written defamation of character. A person who believes their name and character have been harmed can sue. In this case, the supreme court declared that freedom of the press takes precedence—at least when the defamed individual is a public official.

The majority consisted of Justice Earl Warren, Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, and Arthur J. Goldberg. The majority opinion was made by William J. Brennan, to protect the right to freedom of expression in the First Amendment, the Court rule that the criminal libel law should follow the same standards as civil libel law. True statements regardless of its malicious value will not be considered libel. While statements that are intentionally false or created with a rash disregard for the truth are considered to be libel and can be punished by the law. The restriction was modeled from a prior case, New York Times v. Sullivan, freedom of speech protection should not be exercise separately to a civil libel statute than to a criminal case. The Court concluded that the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute was unlawfully broad and that it breaches the protections of the First Amendment’s free

Tort Law: A right of a private citizen to take legal action against an entity or human if harm has been caused. The issue within the legal action does not have to be against the law. The primary goal of tort law is to require financial compensation to the individuals that have been harmed and deter future similar actions to happen.

A tort is an act of wrong doing to one in the absence of a contract. The wrong doing occurs when there is a breach of duty, that is, when one has been inattentive to act in a reasonable manner. The wrong doing or wrongful act must cause loss or injury in order to be acknowledged as a tort. Furthermore, a tort is not necessarily a crime, but depending on the wrongful act committed, could be considered both a tort and a crime, such as when one is physically attacked. A tort is treated as a civil wrong, is used to more or less, make amends to the individual victim via compensation; punitive damages may also be assessed. A crime is considered a public wrong, a breach of duty to the general public, resulting in criminal action being taken by the state, which may include punishment via incarceration. (McAdams, 2015, p. 278).

3) How should Paige approach any legal cause of action, and what is that cause of action? Should she commence litigation, or is another alternative more preferable? (Colorado State University-Global Campus, 2014b).

However, time and time again proves that defamation is hard to prove, Levitt v. Felton. Todd Levitt is an attorney and

Lewis states that this case “revolutionized the law of libel in the United States” he explains that “The old common law doctrine putting the burden on libel defendants to prove truth was reversed.” (Lewis, Pg.55) This case even resulted in affecting the law in other countries, I agree that it was the right approach to create the three laws of libel. I feel that Lewis does a great job writing this case objectively yet still allowing his readers to come to the same conclusion he does, the case was handled properly by the Supreme Court in their ending deciscion.

The student 's motion for summary judgment was granted by the court and dismissed Drakers claims against the students for defamation and libel per se. The students and their families then had to file another motion for summary judgment regarding Draker’s remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Once this happened, Draker filed her third amended petition alleging the students only for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence and gross negligence as to the parents. Eric Goldman states, “the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because under TX law the cause of action is a gap-filler, and there was no gap given that the defamation doctrine putatively governs these facts.” Along with her third amended petition, Draker filed a motion for continuance. This motion would give her more time to look into the facts of her remaining claims. This motion was denied by the trial court. Along with the denial of Drakers motion, the court granted the Schreibers ' and the Todds ' motion for summary judgment. Draker argues that the trial court made three mistakes. These mistakes, as listed in the case are (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the students on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of the parents on her claims of negligence and gross negligence; and (3) denying her motion for continuance and

II. Can our client show a special injury from another earlier suit against him, as required to have an action for malicious prosecution, when his charter boat was seized pending the suit as allowed by state, and when his professional reputation was damaged because of the suit?

Haley Romeros had just been appointed vice president of the Rocky Mountain Region of the Bank Services Corporation (BSC). The company provides check processing services for small banks. The banks send checks presented for deposit or payment to BSC, which records the data on each check in a computerized database. BSC then sends the data electronically to the nearest Federal Reserve Bank check-clearing center where the appropriate transfers of funds are made between banks. The Rocky Mountain Region has three check processing centers, which are located in Billings, Montana; Great Falls, Montana; and Clayton, Idaho. Prior to her promotion to vice president, Ms. Romeros had been the manager of a check processing center in New Jersey.