Turner v. Hearst
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. Wm. R. Daingereield, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Appeals from the judgment and from the order denying defendant a new trial.
The action was for damages for libel. Defendant in his newspaper, the San Francisco Examiner, on the seventh day of December, 1893, published what purported to be an account of difficulties existing between Lotta, an actress, and Turner, the plaintiff. In this account it was stated that Lotta had caused Turner’s arrest upon a criminal charge, and that “the case was compromised, together with the settlement of several thousand dollars in notes, given by the Plumas county lawyer to the actress.”
On the trial it appeared,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Burt v. Advertiser Newspaper Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Tregambo v. Comanche Mill & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1881
- Sappenfield v. Main Street & Agricultural Park RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Childers v. San Jose Mercury Printing & Publishing Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Taylor v. HearstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Davis v. HearstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Kapellas v. KofmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Scott v. Times-Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
- Den Norske Ameriekalinje Actiesselskabet v. Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Gorman v. County of SacramentoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.