Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
The "Reception" Of Defamation By The Common Law, Colin R. Lovell
The "Reception" Of Defamation By The Common Law, Colin R. Lovell
Vanderbilt Law Review
The rather low opinion held by Mr. Bumble concerning the logic of the law must be set off by the Holmesian reminder that not "logic," but"experience" has kept the law viable. The warning has peculiar applicability in looking at the common law doctrines on defamation. Only the experience of history can explain why, in contrast to Roman civil law systems with their view that all defamations and insults are injuriae, with a single remedial action, the common law has no interest in mere bad language' and goes on to have two separate actions for defamation. Moreover, these are quite artificially …
The Absolute Privilege Of The Executive In Defamation, Arno C. Becht
The Absolute Privilege Of The Executive In Defamation, Arno C. Becht
Vanderbilt Law Review
Should executive officers have an absolute privilege to commit defamation? This is Professor Becht's inquiry as he traces the evolution and application of this privilege from its origin in England through its development in American state and federal courts. After balancing the factors for and against absolute immunity, the writer reaches the conclusion that officials should be reduced to a qualified privilege in defamation.
Defamation, A Camouflage Of Psychic Interests: The Beginning Of A Behavioral Analysis, Walter Probert
Defamation, A Camouflage Of Psychic Interests: The Beginning Of A Behavioral Analysis, Walter Probert
Vanderbilt Law Review
Does the law of defamation need to be reformed? The author thinks so. Professor Probert rejects the doctrine of libel per se and questions the courts' understanding and use of the term "reputation." It is his belief that plaintiffs on an individual basis should have increased benefit of the knowledge accumulated by the various social sciences in proving the harm done by the alleged defamation, with more liberalization in the requirements of pleading and proof than is now generally countenanced by the courts.
Statement Of Fact Versus Statement Of Opinion -- A Spurious Dispute In Fair Comment, Herbert W. Titus
Statement Of Fact Versus Statement Of Opinion -- A Spurious Dispute In Fair Comment, Herbert W. Titus
Vanderbilt Law Review
In attempting to solve problems in a variety of areas lawyers continuously make use of a distinction between statements of "fact" on the one hand and those of "opinion" on the other.' So versatile is this distinction that it has been used to solve problems raised in such diverse areas of the law as evidence and defamation. However, since the turn of the century the fact-opinion dichotomy has been severely criticized as a means of deciding what kinds of testimony should be allowed in a legal trial. Yet in the law of defamation, where this distinction has been extensively applied …
Defamation And The Right Of Privacy, John W. Wade, Dean
Defamation And The Right Of Privacy, John W. Wade, Dean
Vanderbilt Law Review
The history of the two torts of defamation and unwarranted invasion of the right of privacy has been greatly different. Defamation developed over a period of many centuries, with the twin torts of libel and slander having completely separate origins and historical growth. Professor Street summarizes this history by declaring that there was "a perversion of evolutionary processes," with the result that there was produced "a rather heterogeneous pile which should normally have gone to form a consistent body of legal doctrine, but which on the contrary, comprises many disconnected fragments moving in a confused way under the impulse of …
Torts-Libel-Constitutionality Of Retraction Statute Eliminating General Damages Recovery, John W. Galanis
Torts-Libel-Constitutionality Of Retraction Statute Eliminating General Damages Recovery, John W. Galanis
Michigan Law Review
Following publication of allegedly libelous statements made by defendants during a televised news broadcast, plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages. Defendants' motion to strike the allegations of general and punitive damages was granted by the trial court since the complaint did not allege that defendants intended to defame plaintiff, or that defendants refused to publish a requested retraction of a non-intentional libel, both of which are conditions precedent to recovery of such damages under the Oregon statute. Plaintiff failed to plead further and judgment was entered for defendants. On appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court, held, affirmed. The …