Chafoulias v. Peterson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Dissent
ANDERSON, RUSSELL A., Justice.
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Chafoulias is a limited purpose public figure but part company with its conclusion that ABC stands in a different position than Peterson on the issue. I conclude, as must the majority, that the factual record is sufficient to allow this court to reach the legal conclusion that Chafoulias is a limited purpose public figure. As to the issue of actual malice, I agree with the majority that summary judgment was appropriately granted as to ABC. Because I would conclude that Cha-foulias is a limited…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Rosenblatt v. BaerSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. ConnaughtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.