Levert v. Daily States Pub. Co.
Citations
- 123 La. 594
- 49 So. 206
- 1909 La. LEXIS 750
Syllabus
<p>1. Libel and Slander (§§ 101, 113*) — Malioe — Presumptions—Damages.</p> <p>Malice on the part of a publisher of statements selected from other journals that are injurious to the reputation or character of private individuals or public officials is conclusively inferred if the communications are false in fact. The good intentions of the publisher affect only the question of damages, and, where no special damages are proven, the plaintiff is entitled to such damages on account of injured feeling as must unavoidably be inferred from the nature of the libel. Fitzpatrick v. Publishing Co., 48 La. Ann. 1135, 20 South. 173.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 278, 342; Dec. Dig. §§ 101, 113.*]</p> <p>2. Libel and Slander (§ 10*) — Charges oe Oeeicial Misconduct.</p> <p>A sweeping charge of official favoritism and misconduct leveled against the members of a public board without exception necessarily points the finger of condemnation at every one of them, though none are named, and if not proven constitutes a libel, if the members are known and the publication is generally understood to apply to them.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. § 91; Dec. Dig. § 10.*]</p> <p>3. Constitutional Law (§ 90*) — “Freedom op the Press.”</p> <p>The “freedom of the press” consists in a right, in a conductor of a newspaper, to print what he chooses, without previous license, but subject to be held responsible^ therefor as any one else for a similar publication.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 172; Dec. Dig. § 90.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 5, pp. 4131-4133; vol. 8, p. 7706.]</p> <p>4. Libel and Slander (§ 114*) — Damages— Nominal Damages.</p> <p>The absence of actual malice in the publisher of a libelous article on a matter of public concern will be considered in mitigation of damages, and, where no special damages have been sustained, nominal
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing same as to “denial of [plaintiff's] application for a promotion”
- “The [n-word] evinces a hatred and disgust of African Americans and invokes dehumanizing stereotypes that served to justify centuries of social, economic and political discrimination.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Breaux, Decree, Land, Monroe
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.