Legal Opinion
Pierce v. San Jose Mercury News
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 30, 1989No. H003283PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
COTTLE, J.
In this action for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the trial court granted defendant newspaper’s motion for summary judgment after it was admitted that plaintiff suffered no special damages as the result of an allegedly libelous publication. Earlier the court had determined, in a motion for summary adjudication of issues, that plaintiff was limited to special damages because the newspaper had printed a retraction in “substantially as conspicuous a manner ... as were the statements claimed to be libelous.” (Civ. Code, § 48a.) On appeal, plaintiff…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Maressa v. New Jersey MonthlySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
- Turner v. HearstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Gomes v. FriedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Brogan v. Passaic Daily NewsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1956
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- J-M Manufacturing Co. v. Phillips & Cohen LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- J-M Manufacturing Co. v. Phillips & Cohen LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Arnold G. Dorsey, A.K.A. Engelbert Humperdinck v. National Enquirer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Arnold G. Dorsey, A.K.A. Engelbert Humperdinck v. National Enquirer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Arnold G. Dorsey, A.K.A. Engelbert Humperdinck v. National Enquirer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.