Also known as: actual fact
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
The real circumstances presented by a dispute. A forum court applies the whole law of the situs state to reach the same outcome a court of that state would reach on those circumstances.
The real circumstances presented by a dispute. A forum court applies the whole law of the situs state to reach the same outcome a court of that state would reach on those circumstances.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Assertions that a reasonable person would understand as making concrete, verifiable claims about a person or event. Statements that cannot reasonably be read as asserting such claims receive First Amendment protection in defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress actions.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Assertions that a reasonable person would understand as making concrete, verifiable claims about a person or event. Statements that cannot reasonably be read as asserting such claims receive First Amendment protection in defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress actions.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Anchor Bank, a State X lender, holds a mortgage on land in State Y that contains a clause selecting State Z priority rules. When a later purchaser sues in State X court, the court consults State Y's entire legal system, including its choice-of-law rules, to decide priority exactly as a State Y court would on the real circumstances of the recording and sale.
For immovables the forum applies the whole law of the situs, including its choice-of-law rules, to reach the same result a situs court would reach on the real circumstances. For movables the forum usually applies only the local law of the state with the most significant relationship and does not attempt to replicate the selected state's outcome on those circumstances.
Supporting sources
Members of a church group display signs near a soldier's funeral accusing the family of raising a homosexual. The family sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because the signs express the group's general views rather than concrete claims about the deceased or his family, the statements receive First Amendment protection.
Hustler publishes a parody advertisement depicting a well-known minister in an incestuous encounter. The minister sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury finds that no reasonable reader would take the parody as describing real events involving the minister, so the claim fails.
A newspaper column states that a high-school coach lied under oath at a hearing. The coach sues for defamation. A reasonable reader could interpret the column as asserting that the coach made a specific false statement on a verifiable matter, so the statement is actionable if false and made with actual malice.
A district attorney issues a press release accusing judges of laziness and case fixing. The state prosecutes for criminal defamation. Because the statements charge the judges with specific, verifiable misconduct rather than mere opinion, they can support liability if made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.
A newspaper editorial accuses a city commissioner of corruption in office. The commissioner sues for libel. The statements assert concrete facts about the commissioner's official actions that are capable of being proved true or false, so the plaintiff must show actual malice to recover.
Defamation requires a false statement of fact. Expressions that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating provably false facts about the plaintiff receive First Amendment protection even if they are offensive or hurtful.
Supporting sources
Yes. Speech that does not assert actual facts receives First Amendment protection and cannot support an IIED claim, as held in cases requiring a false statement of fact made with actual malice.
Supporting sources
…against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the ad parody could not “reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated.” App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The jury ruled for respondent on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, however,…