McCracken v. Evening News Ass'n

How courts have described this case

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

• referring briefly to a “qualified privilege” but not discussing malice and instead concluding that the reportage in question was substantially accurate and the plaintiff had not shown proof of damages
• newspaper not liable for reporting plaintiff charged with $100,000 fraud when it was actually $50,000
• report that plaintiff was charged with a $100,000 fraud was substantially true even though he was actually charged with a $50,000 fraud
• “The statute protects newspaper publishers if the article is a fair and true report of the public and official proceeding.”
• newspaper publisher did not abuse its qualified privilege by reporting that plaintiff was charged with a $100,000 fraud when, in fact, the warrant specified a $50,000 fraud, because that inaccuracy did not alter effect on reader

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).