Also known as: republications · republishing · republish · republished · republication of will
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A doctrine under which execution of a codicil to a will is treated as reexecution of the will itself. The doctrine causes the will to take effect as of the codicil date for purposes such as incorporation by reference and disposition of after-acquired property.
A doctrine under which execution of a codicil to a will is treated as reexecution of the will itself. The doctrine causes the will to take effect as of the codicil date for purposes such as incorporation by reference and disposition of after-acquired property.
The repetition or wider dissemination of a defamatory statement. A person who publishes a defamatory statement remains liable for additional harm caused by a third party's repetition when the original speaker authorized or intended the repetition.
The repetition or wider dissemination of a defamatory statement. A person who publishes a defamatory statement remains liable for additional harm caused by a third party's repetition when the original speaker authorized or intended the repetition.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
1 common questions
A codicil republishes an earlier will only when the codicil shows an intent to revive or reexecute the will. The doctrine treats the will as executed on the codicil date for purposes such as incorporation by reference, but revival requires evidence of the testator's intent.
Supporting sources
Ravi Reddy, a compliance officer at Redwood Bank, told loan officers that former employee Roberto Reyes had laundered cartel funds. Reddy then uploaded the slides to an industry folder and urged other banks to circulate them. Several banks reposted the slides in their risk bulletins, causing Reyes additional lost job opportunities. Reddy is liable for the harm from those republications because he authorized and intended the repetition.
Senator Rhea Reynolds delivered remarks on the Senate floor accusing a contractor of fraud. She later included the identical remarks in a press release sent to newspapers and posted on her website. The contractor sued for defamation based on the press release. The republication falls outside speech-or-debate protection and exposes Reynolds to liability.
In March 1975, United States Senator William Proxmire from Wisconsin established the Golden Fleece of the Month Award to highlight examples of what he viewed as wasteful federal spending. The second award, announced in April 1975, targeted grants totaling approximately half a million dollars over seven years from the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Office of Naval Research to support research by Ronald Hutchinson, a behavioral scientist. At the time, Hutchinson served as director of research at the Kalamazoo State Mental Hospital, operated by the Michigan State Department of Mental Health, after holding a similar position at the Ft. Custer State Home. He also acted as an adjunct professor at Western Michigan University and later became research director at the Foundation for Behavioral Research when the hospital department closed in June 1975. His work focused on developing an objective measure of aggression through studies of animal behavior patterns, such as jaw clenching in response to stress, with potential applications for human confinement in space and undersea environments. Proxmire's legislative assistant Morton Schwartz prepared the award materials after reviewing Hutchinson's grant reports and contacting federal agencies. On April 18, 1975, Proxmire presented a speech in the Senate, which was distributed via an advance press release to 275 media outlets, describing the research in critical terms including references to monkey business and taxpayer waste. The speech text appeared in a May 1975 newsletter sent to about 100,000 recipients, and Proxmire referenced similar research on a television program; a February 1976 newsletter summarized the award without naming Hutchinson. Schwartz telephoned Hutchinson prior to the release to inform him of the award, and Hutchinson objected to the summary's accuracy. Following the announcement, Schwartz contacted sponsoring federal agencies to discuss the funding. Hutchinson filed suit on April 16, 1976, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging defamation that damaged his professional reputation and income, interference with contractual relations, and later infringement of privacy rights. The District Court granted summary judgment to Proxmire and Schwartz. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1979.
View caseSenator Regina Robinson read classified documents into the congressional record. She then arranged for a publishing house to print and sell the full text as a book. A grand jury sought testimony about the book arrangement. The republication through commercial distribution receives no speech-or-debate immunity.
In the summer of 1971, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Massachusetts opened an investigation into possible criminal violations arising from the release and publication of a classified Defense Department study known as the Pentagon Papers. Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska, who chaired the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the Senate Committee on Public Works, obtained a copy of the study from one of the defendants in a pending criminal case in the Southern District of New York. On the evening of June 29, 1971, the Senator convened a meeting of his subcommittee, read extensively from the papers, and placed all forty-seven volumes into the public record. Earlier that same day Dr. Leonard S. Rodberg, a research assistant at the Institute for Policy Studies, was added to Senator Gravel's personal staff and assisted the Senator in preparing for and conducting the subcommittee hearing. Several weeks later, press reports indicated that the Senator had arranged for private publication of the papers by Beacon Press and that members of his staff had spoken with the director of the MIT Press about the project. The grand jury issued subpoenas to Dr. Rodberg and to Howard Webber, director of the MIT Press, seeking notes, tape recordings, documents, and testimony concerning the release and publication of the papers. The District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied motions to quash the subpoenas but entered a protective order that limited the categories of questions the grand jury could ask Dr. Rodberg. The United States appealed the protective order to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which modified the order in several respects while affirming the denial of the motions to quash. Senator Gravel moved to intervene in the proceedings, was granted leave to do so, and filed a cross-petition challenging portions of the Court of Appeals decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both United States v. Doe and Gravel v. United States to review the rulings concerning the scope of protection afforded by the Speech or Debate Clause.
A radio station received a tape of an illegally intercepted cell-phone conversation and broadcast it. The station had not participated in the interception but knew the tape had been obtained unlawfully. The subject sued the station for defamation based on the broadcast. The republication is actionable because the station knowingly disseminated the defamatory content.
In the fall of 1992 and spring of 1993 the Pennsylvania State Education Association engaged in collective-bargaining negotiations with the Wyoming Valley West School District board. Petitioner Anthony Kane was president of the local union. Petitioner Gloria Bartnicki served as the union's chief negotiator and a teacher in the district. On the evening of May 15, 1993, Bartnicki used a cellular telephone in her car to call Kane. During the conversation they discussed the status of the negotiations, the possibility of a strike, and the board's offer of a three-percent raise. Kane suggested that if the board did not increase its offer the union should reject it and go on strike. He made statements about blowing off front porches and doing work on some of the board members. Bartnicki responded that they would have to do some nasty things. An unidentified person intercepted and recorded the cellular telephone conversation using an electronic device. The unknown interceptor gave the tape to respondent Jack Yocum, president of a local taxpayers' organization that had been critical of the union's demands. Yocum in turn gave the tape to respondent Frederick W. Vopper, a radio talk show host operating in the area. On May 31, 1993, Vopper played the tape of the intercepted conversation on his public affairs talk show. He played the tape again on August 23, 1993, during a news broadcast on a local television station. The same day the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader published a transcript of a portion of the tape. Bartnicki and Kane filed suit against Vopper, Yocum, and other media defendants seeking damages under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. After discovery the District Court granted the petitioners' motion for summary judgment as to liability. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
3 common questions
An original defamer is liable for additional harm from a third party's repetition when the original speaker authorized or intended the repetition. Liability also arises when the repetition was reasonably to be expected under the circumstances.
Supporting sources
The single-publication rule treats one edition of a mass communication as a single publication even when the identical content appears in different but coordinated formats. When the releases are staggered in time or reach materially different audiences, courts may treat them as separate publications.
Supporting sources
Speech-or-debate immunity protects statements made in Congress but does not extend to republication outside the legislative chamber. A member who repeats the remarks in a press release, book, or other public medium may be held liable for defamation.
Supporting sources
…from that long-established rule. Mr. Justice Story in his Commentaries, for example, explained that there was no immunity for republication of a speech first delivered in Congress: “Therefore, although a speech delivered in the house of commons is privileged, and the member cannot be questioned respecting it elsewhere; yet,…