Clint Eastwood v. National Enquirer, Inc., Clint Eastwood v. National Enquirer, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “ ‘clear and convincing’ is a means of protecting society from the consequences of grave decisions too lightly reached”
• concluding that the record supported findings of actual malice where the Enquirer sought to create the impression that it had directly interviewed Clint Eastwood, by among other things, marking the interview as “exclusive,” when the interview never took place
• finding that a plaintiff must prove “malice by clear and convincing evidence,” which is described as “a heavy burden, far in excess of the preponderance sufficient for most civil litigation.”
• concluding after a jury trial that “intentional conduct [described in evidence of the case] satisfie[d] the ‘actual malice’ standard, permitting a [jury] verdict for [the plaintiff]”
• stating that neither “mere negligence” nor “an extreme departure from accepted professional standards of journalism ... or any other departure from reasonably prudent conduct, including the failure to investigate before pubhshing,” will “suffice to establish actual malice”
• finding from totality of editors’ choices that they intended to convey impression, known to be false, that Eastwood wilfully submitted to interview by Enquirer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).