Woods v. Sentinel-News Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
When language claimed to be libelous does not carry a sense supporting the meaning alleged and is not reasonably capable of conveying to the ordinary mind a defamatory meaning, it cannot be the basis of a right to maintain an action. It is the duty of the court in the first instance to determine whether the meaning ascribed by the pleader to the words set forth in the complaint is a natural and proper one, and if it is not, then the complaint must fall. Lubcke v. Teckam, 179 Wis. 543, 191 N. W. 968; Scofield v. Milwaukee Free Press Co. 126 Wis. 81, 105 N. W. 227; Robertson v. Edelstein, 104…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bradley v. CramerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Leuch v. BergerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915
- Scofield v. Milwaukee Free Press Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Robertson v. EdelsteinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Lubcke v. TeckamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Frinzi v. HansonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- MacH v. AllisonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2002
- Meier v. MeurerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
- Puhr v. Press Publishing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1946
- De Husson v. Hearst Corp. Gerds v. Hearst Corp. Heilpap v. Hearst Corp. Rajsich v. Hearst CorpCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.