ohio libel per quod

• Wilson v. Harvey, (Ohio 2005)

DEFAMATION; LIBEL PER SE; LIBEL PER QUOD; INVASION OF PRIVACY; SPECIAL DAMAGES; HOMOSEXUAL.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Jacobs v. Budak, (Ohio 2008)

Civil Procedure - directed verdict; labor dispute; libel per se; libel per quod; union; newsletter; actual malice; actual damages; law of the case; preemption federal law; admission of evidence; abuse of discretion.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Kanjuka v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., (Ohio 2002)

PER QUOD, DIRECTED VERDICT, LIBEL, SLANDER, EVIDENCE, JUDGE, DISCRETION AND ABUSE OF, HARMLESS ERROR, QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Jacobs v. Budak, (Ohio 2004)

DEFAMATION – libel per se; libel per quod; motion for summary judgment; genuine issue of material fact; First Amendment; opinion; factual representation; labor dispute; actual malice; special damages; presumed damages; ridicule.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Strussion v. Akron Beacon Journal Publishing Co., (Ohio 2002)

Defamation, Invasion of Privacy, Section 1983, Summary Judgment, Libel Per Se, Libel Per Quod, Special Damages, Legitimate Concern to Public, Respondeat Superior.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Electric Furnace Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee and Plaintiff, Cross-Appellant, v. Deering Milliken Research Corporation, Defendant-Appellant and Defendant,Cross-Appellee., 383 F.2d 352 (6th Cir. 1967)

... Corporation (Deering) defendant in a libel action, from a judgment for plaintiff, Electric Fu... se, but could be found to be libelous per quod; but we observed that 'libel per quod standing alo...Brumley, 138 Ohio St. 574, 37 N.E.2d 584 (1941). There a plaintiff a...

• Federal Circuits

• Griffis v. Klein, (Ohio 2008)

Trial court erred in resolving whether defendant was entitled to a qualified privilege defense upon remand when the prior appeal determined that issues of fact existed. Trial court did not err in determining legal issue of whether defamatory letter was libel per quod, as opposed to libel per se. Because trial court correctly determined that the letter was libel per quod and that plaintiff had not alleged special damages, trial court properly granted judgment to defendant. Any error in the defendant raising issues in a motion in limine was harmless. Judgment affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967)

... a State's power to award damages for libel in actions brought by public officials against cri... in fact have been brought as "libel per quod" actions, and several have been brought on both gr...Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , but is not here asserted. Similar...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Yoakam v. Boyd, (Ohio 2010)

Libel per se; qualified privilege; actual malice.

... in the letter were not libelous per quod and found that because Yoakam had neither pled nor...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Murray v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., (Ohio 2004)

Summary judgment; Defamation; Per se v. per quod; Statement indicating appellant death immenient was defamation per se as it adversely affects his business; Innocent construction rule; Inapplicable to defamation per se; Remaining statements that appellant is a liar also are defamation per se when taken in conjunction with each other; Substantial truth; Regardless of whether a statement is per se or per quod defamation if it is substantially true it is not actionable as a matter of law; Disputes as to whether statements were substantially true as such it is a jury question; Actual malice; Limited purpose public figure; Of and concerning; Appellant is the company, a reasonable jury could conclude this; Opinion, the way and where the statement was published, in an investigative piece, show...

... In a libel claim, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) a fa...

• Ohio Supreme Court