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.
2
in torts
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.
Sense 1
1
in conflict of laws
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.
See Our Sources· 1 source
Restatements
Examples
Sense 2
2
in torts
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.
1
Forum Applies Situs Whole Law
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.
1 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
How does the conflicts rule for immovables differ from the rule for movables regarding actual facts?
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
Examples5
Protest Signs at Funeral
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.
Snyder v. Phelps562 U.S. 443 (2011)
Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in action in Iraq. His father, Albert Snyder, arranged for the funeral to be held in Westminster, Maryland. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, an unincorporated association founded by Fred Phelps, learned of the funeral through local newspapers and decided to picket it to communicate their belief that God punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality.
On the day of the funeral, Westboro members displayed placards on public land approximately 1,000 feet from the church where the service was held. The signs included messages such as "God Hates the USA," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Pope in Hell," "Priests Rape Boys," "You’re Going to Hell," and "God Hates Fags." The picketing took place for about 30 minutes before the funeral began. The funeral procession passed within 200 to 300 feet of the picketers. Church members also posted an online "epic" that discussed Matthew Snyder’s funeral and criticized his parents.
Albert Snyder filed a diversity action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against Fred Phelps, his daughters, and the Westboro Baptist Church. The suit alleged claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy. A jury found for Snyder and awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.
The district court reduced the punitive damages award to $2.1 million but left the verdict otherwise intact. The Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment, holding that Westboro’s statements were protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the First Amendment shields the church members from tort liability for their picketing speech.
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.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell485 U.S. 46 (1988)
Hustler Magazine, Inc., a magazine of nationwide circulation, and its publisher Larry Flynt published a parody of a Campari Liqueur advertisement in the November 1983 issue. The parody featured respondent Jerry Falwell and suggested that his first time sampling the liqueur occurred during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The parody included a disclaimer in small print that it was an ad parody not to be taken seriously.
Falwell filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia seeking damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court directed a verdict against Falwell on the privacy claim. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim but awarded Falwell $100,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages from each petitioner on the emotional distress claim.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari given the importance of the constitutional issues involved.
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.
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.497 U.S. 1 (1990)
In 1974 Michael Milkovich served as head wrestling coach at Maple Heights High School in Ohio. During a match against Mentor High School a fight broke out between the teams. Several wrestlers were injured and one opposing coach was struck in the face. Milkovich and Maple Heights superintendent H. Don Scott testified before the Ohio High School Athletic Association that Milkovich had not been involved in the altercation. The OHSAA censured Milkovich and placed the Maple Heights team on probation for one year.
Several wrestlers and their parents sued the OHSAA in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio, alleging denial of due process. Both Milkovich and Scott testified in that proceeding. The court overturned the OHSAA sanctions on due process grounds. The day after the decision the News-Herald published a column by J. Theodore Diadiun. The column bore the heading "Maple beat the law with the big lie.'"
It stated that Milkovich and Scott lied at the hearing after each having given his solemn oath to tell the truth. It further stated that by the time the hearing before Judge Martin rolled around, Milkovich and Scott apparently had their version of the incident polished and reconstructed, and the judge apparently believed them.
Milkovich filed a defamation action against Diadiun and the newspaper’s owner, Lorain Journal Co., in the Court of Common Pleas of Lake County, Ohio. He alleged that the column accused him of committing perjury. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendants. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial. On remand the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed.
In a parallel action brought by Superintendent Scott the Ohio Supreme Court held that the same column constituted protected opinion. Relying on that decision the Ohio Court of Appeals in Milkovich’s case affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Milkovich’s appeal for want of a substantial constitutional question. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Criticism of Judges
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.
Garrison v. State of Louisiana379 U.S. 64 (1964)
Appellant Jim Garrison served as the District Attorney of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, during a dispute with the eight judges of the Criminal District Court of the Parish over disbursements from the Fines and Fees Fund, which required judicial approval for expenditures. After disagreements including a refusal for office furnishings and a new rule requiring five-judge concurrence for further disbursements, the judges denied funds for undercover vice investigations in New Orleans on October 26, 1962.
A retired judge issued a public statement criticizing Garrison’s conduct of his office on November 1, 1962. The next day, Garrison held a press conference and issued a statement charging the judges with creating a large backlog of pending criminal cases due to their inefficiency, laziness, and excessive vacations, and with hampering vice law enforcement by refusing disbursements while suggesting racketeer influences on the vacation-minded judges.
Garrison was subsequently tried without a jury before a judge from another parish and convicted of criminal defamation under the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute. The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the conviction at 244 La. 787, 154 So. 2d 400. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction at 375 U. S. 900, heard argument first in the 1963 Term, ordered the case restored for reargument at 377 U. S. 986, and ultimately reversed the conviction.
Newspaper Editorial on Official Conduct
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.
New York Times v. Sullivan376 U.S. 254 (1964)
L. B. Sullivan is one of three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. He has duties including supervision of the Police Department. He brought this civil libel action against the New York Times Company and four individual petitioners who were Alabama clergymen. The suit sought $500,000 in damages based on a full-page advertisement entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices" that appeared in the New York Times on March 29, 1960. A jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County awarded Sullivan the full amount claimed against all petitioners. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment.
The advertisement was signed by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South. It described widespread non-violent demonstrations by Southern Negro students and an unprecedented wave of terror against them. Two paragraphs formed the basis of the claim. One alleged that after students sang on the State Capitol steps their leaders were expelled, truckloads of police ringed the Alabama State College Campus, and the dining hall was padlocked to starve students into submission. The other stated that Southern violators had bombed Dr. King's home, assaulted him, arrested him seven times, and charged him with perjury. The text appeared over the names of 64 persons. It was endorsed by the individual petitioners among others.
Sullivan contended that the references to police referred to him in his supervisory capacity. Six Montgomery residents testified that they read the statements as referring to him. However, several statements were inaccurate. The students sang the National Anthem rather than "My Country, 'Tis of Thee." The expulsions were for a different incident. The dining hall was not padlocked. Dr. King had been arrested only four times. The bombings occurred before Sullivan's tenure with police efforts to apprehend the perpetrators.
The Times published the advertisement for approximately $4800. It acted upon an order from a New York advertising agency. The agency provided a letter from A. Philip Randolph certifying authorization. The Times made no efforts to confirm its accuracy against its own news files.
Sullivan served written demands for retraction on the petitioners pursuant to Alabama law. None of the individual petitioners responded as they had not authorized use of their names. The Times did not retract. It published a retraction only upon demand by Governor John Patterson after learning more facts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the separate petitions of the individual petitioners and the Times due to the importance of the constitutional issues involved.
2 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
Why must a statement assert actual facts to be actionable in defamation?
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
Does the actual-facts requirement apply to intentional infliction of emotional distress claims?
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
485 U.S. 46 (1988)
…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,…