Legal Opinion

Capobianco v. Pulitzer Publishing Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 11, 1991No. 58430PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SATZ, Judge.

This is an action for defamation and intentional interference with a business expectancy. In three of the four counts in his petition, plaintiff, Robert Capobianco, alleges he was libeled in newspaper articles by defendant, Pulitzer Publishing Company, the publisher of the articles, and Michael Sorkin and Catherine Vespereny, the authors of the articles. In his fourth count, plaintiff alleges the defendants interfered with a business expectancy of his. The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the libel counts and granted them a summary judgment on plaintiffs…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Hester v. BarnettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. Diener v. Star-Chronicle Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
  3. Langworthy v. Pulitzer Publishing CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1963
  4. Brown v. KittermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1969
  5. Francisco v. Kansas City Star Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1981

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Nazeri v. Missouri Valley CollegeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
  2. James Turntine v. Charles PetersonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2020
  3. Lay v. St. Louis Helicopter Airways, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1993
  4. Castle Rock Remodeling, LLC v. Better Business Bureau of Greater St. Louis, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2011
  5. Hamilton v. SpencerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API