Legal Opinion
Arizona Biochemical Company v. Hearst Corporation
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 23, 1969No. 68 Civ. 4549, 68 Civ. 4522PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EDELSTEIN, District Judge.
The defendants in these separate actions for libel have both moved under Rule 12(b) (6) F.R.Civ.P. to dismiss the complaints filed against them on the grounds that the plaintiff has failed to allege sufficiently both actual malice and damages as required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). As a predicate to this argument, defendants maintain that New York Times governs this case.
The plaintiff, Arizona Biochemical Company, is in the business of collecting and disposing of garbage, and, at the time of the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Thornhill v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Curtis Publishing Co. v. ButtsSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc. And Dan JenkinsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
- Grove v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
- Fadell v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1976
- Davis v. RossDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1985
- LaBruzzo v. Associated PressDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1973
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.