Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chafoulias v. Peterson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 17, 2003No. C2-01-1617Published

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

  1. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  4. Rosenblatt v. BaerSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. ConnaughtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

12 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