Cooke v. O'Malley
Citations
- 109 La. 382
- 33 So. 377
- 1902 La. LEXIS 152
Syllabus
<p>LIBEL — EVIDENCE — JUSTIFICATION — NEWSPAPERS — CRITICISM OP PUBLIC AFFAIRS - INSURANCE — DUTIES OF ADJUSTER.</p> <p>Exceptions to Ruling of District Court.</p> <p>1. The proof of proceedings of the legislature in reference to insurance legislation was not pertinent to the issue of libel vel non, for the plea of justification interposed by the defendant is -to be sustained by proof of facts charged, and not by proof of purpose in publishing the charge. The circumstances and facts do not show that this evidence was admissible in mitigation of damages.</p> <p>2. The charges of unfairness, arbitrariness, and oppressiveness should be sustained by special instances and incidents, and not by reputation and general conduct. Evidence of conduct in particular cases not set out in the answers was properly excluded, as was proof of general reputation of the adjuster.</p> <p>3. Evidence of losses adjusted, and the amounts found due in a given number of losses, was germane and pertinent to the case, and properly admitted.</p> <p>4. It is true that the justification need not go further than the charge, and that matter not specifically set out in the petition as libelous need not be justified in defense; but the defendant having offered evidence of other charges to support the general averments of misconduct, oppression, and injustice, it was not to be closely restricted, as applying exclusively to the general averment.</p> <p>5. It was shown that a clipping offered in evidence was from the newspaper sued, of which one of the defendants is the owner. It was admissible.</p> <p>6. Testimony admissible to prove that a clause in a policy is ■ not merely technical and arbitrary.</p> <p>On' the Merits.</p> <p>7. While a newspaper has the right to publish to the general public a fair comment and criticism on matters of public concern, it will not, as a rule, be protected if it goes farther than the occasion or conduct warrants.</p> <p>8. The adjuster does not discharge functions of a
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- declining to limit “preemptively testimony regarding the contents of [an] Audio Recording” but noting that to the extent “the Government fails at trial to establish the requirements of Rules 602 or 701, Defendant may renew his objection to the testimony”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Adhere, Amount, Blanchard, Breaux, Excessive, Law, Respects, Than, That, Their
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.