Also known as: truth defence · truth as a defense · truth as a defence · justification · truth justification
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A complete defense to liability for publication of an injurious falsehood under which the publisher avoids liability if the facts stated or implied are true.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Tobias Thomas faced charges after breaking into a cabin during a blizzard to avoid freezing. He argued that his conduct was necessary to prevent greater harm to himself. The court applied the justification standard and acquitted him because the harm avoided outweighed the offense charged.
Tanya Tang used a path across her neighbor's land for years without interruption. When the neighbor sued to stop the use, Tanya pursued the case to judgment. The court found the use lacked legal justification and ruled against her prescriptive claim.
Tiana Tan challenged a state policy excluding women from certain military roles. The government offered a justification tied to an important objective. The court required an exceedingly persuasive showing that the classification was substantially related to that objective and struck down the policy.
Tanner Thompson signed a discovery response that omitted key documents without substantial justification. The opposing party moved for sanctions. The court imposed an order requiring payment of reasonable expenses caused by the violation.
Theresa Tucker killed her uncle without legal excuse or justification and sought to inherit under his will. The court applied the slayer rule in a civil proceeding. It denied her any right to benefit from the felonious killing.
Twin Rivers Bank published a statement about Topaz Mining's financial status. Topaz sued for injurious falsehood. The bank avoided liability because the facts stated were true.
Yes. The publisher of a statement injurious to another is not liable for injurious falsehood if the facts stated or implied as justification for an opinion stated are true.
Some statutes limit the truth defense to nonmalicious statements, but such limits are unconstitutional where the issue is a matter of public interest.
In some jurisdictions a publisher acting with malice in the sense of ill will may be deprived of the truth defense under state statutes when the constitutional issue is not timely raised.
…early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving the life of the mother," the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here. This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to…