Legal Opinion · Dissent

Marr v. Putnam

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1952Published

1DissentRossman, J.

It is incomprehensible to me that a newspaper, which, in an effort to serve the public, publishes a warning which carefully avoids describing anyone, can be held liable to suit for libel for having made the publication. In this case, the sums sought are $10,000 compensatory and $10,000 punitive damages. The prevailing opinion recognizes a liability, even though some of the persons upon whom the plaintiffs relied deemed the purported application of the article to the plaintiffs as a joke, and others, whose testimony is said to *41support the action, merely feared that the plaintiffs’ advertising…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. MasonOregon Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Watts-Wagner Co. v. General Motors CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945
  3. Mueller v. RadebaughSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
  4. Newton v. GrubbsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API