Legal Opinion

Clement v. Koch

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 20, 1963No. 99PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

The only reasonable inference to be drawn from plaintiff’s allegations is that Louis Cox was the author of the writing and that plaintiff’s cause of action is for the publication or republication thereof. 33 Am. Jur., Libel and Slander § 95; 53 C.J.S., Libel and Slander § 86; Restatement, Torts, Vol. III, § 578; Johnston v. Lance, 29 N.C. 448; Hamilton v. Nance, 159 N.C. 56, 74 S.E. 627; Lewis v. Carr, 178 N.C. 578, 101 S.E. 97.

Notwithstanding the writing refers to “Robert F. Clemmons” rather than “Robert F. Clement,” this difference in spelling is insufficient to impair plaintiff’s…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hedgepeth Ex Rel. Hedgepeth v. ColemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  2. Kindley v. PrivetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Askin's Retail Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  4. Hamilton v. . NanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  5. State v. SawyerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Palmer v. Newport Trust Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API