Also known as: republish · republished · republishing · republication · republication doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A rule in defamation law that holds an original publisher liable for additional harm caused by a third party's repetition of the defamatory statement when the repetition was authorized, intended, or reasonably foreseeable. The rule treats the original publication as a legal cause of the downstream harm in those circumstances. An honest inquiry by the defamed person into the statement does not shield the original publisher from liability for republication.
A rule in defamation law that holds an original publisher liable for additional harm caused by a third party's repetition of the defamatory statement when the repetition was authorized, intended, or reasonably foreseeable. The rule treats the original publication as a legal cause of the downstream harm in those circumstances. An honest inquiry by the defamed person into the statement does not shield the original publisher from liability for republication.
A doctrine providing that execution of a codicil republishes the will as of the codicil's execution date. The rule treats the will as re-executed on the later date for purposes such as satisfying incorporation-by-reference requirements, curing interested-witness problems, or determining the effect of after-born children.
A doctrine providing that execution of a codicil republishes the will as of the codicil's execution date. The rule treats the will as re-executed on the later date for purposes such as satisfying incorporation-by-reference requirements, curing interested-witness problems, or determining the effect of after-born children.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Luis told his restaurant staff that Nora, who owns the neighboring café, had bribed health inspectors. A server repeated the false claim to a food blogger, who published it and caused Nora business losses. Nora sued Luis for defamation seeking recovery for the harm from the blogger's article. Because the repetition by the server and blogger was reasonably foreseeable in the restaurant industry, Luis remained liable for the additional damages.
2 common questions
Liability extends when the repetition was authorized, intended, or reasonably foreseeable. The original publication is treated as a legal cause of the additional harm under those conditions.
Supporting sources
No. Such an inquiry is not a defense to an action for republication by the original defamer.
Supporting sources
G executed a will devising $15,000 to a person later identified in a letter. One year later G executed a codicil changing the personal representative. After G's death the letter dated the same day as the codicil was discovered. Because the codicil republished the will as of the codicil date, the letter satisfied the requirement that it exist when the will was executed.
In February 1922, Helena Day Snyder executed an instrument on stationery of the Savoy Hotel in London two days before her marriage to John J. McGlone. The instrument stated that she renounced all right, title and interest in any estate of her husband to be. On August 21, 1930, McGlone executed a will that recited Helena’s waiver but nevertheless made a bequest of $2,000 to her. Section 18 of the New York Decedent Estate Law had been enacted on March 29, 1929, but did not become effective until September 1, 1930. McGlone executed a codicil on July 6, 1934, which had the effect of bringing his will within the provisions of the new law. Helena sought to exercise the right of election under the statute, precipitating litigation in which the instrument was pleaded as a bar. The Surrogate held that the instrument was not a contract. The Appellate Division held that it was. The New York Court of Appeals assumed without deciding that it was a binding contract but held that section 18 conferred a right of election upon Helena. Helena died in the course of the litigation.
View case2 common questions
The doctrine treats the will as executed on the codicil date. A document that did not exist when the will was first signed can therefore be incorporated if it existed by the time of the codicil.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a codicil is witnessed by disinterested witnesses, the doctrine may treat the will as re-executed on the codicil date and thereby purge the interested-witness defect.