TERRY RAY TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY; PRESIDENT OF WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY; EDITOR OF WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY; STOCKHOLDERS OF WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a publisher is absolutely immune from suit for libel when publishing judicial opinions, and a judge is absolutely privileged for judicial acts.
Appellant sued West Publishing Co. for libel, alleging defamatory remarks in a published judicial opinion. He also sought to add the judge who wrote t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Acts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Terry Ray Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s1 dismissal, 548 F.Supp. 61, of his action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Appellant alleges that West Publishing Co. libeled him by publishing and distributing defamatory remarks contained in Taylor v. Gibson, 529 F. 2d 709 (5th Cir.1976), an opinion written by Judge Bryan Simpson of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Appellant further claims that the district court erred in denying his motion to add Judge Simpson as a defendant.
The district court held that West Publishing Co. was cloaked with, absolute immunity from suit for libel in publishing verbatim judicial opinions. See Lowenschuss v. West Publishing Co., 542 F. 2d 180 (3d Cir.1976). The court further held that Judge Simpson’s act of writing the opinion in Taylor v. Gibson was a judicial act within the jurisdiction of the court and thus absolutely privileged. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1104-05, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978).
After reviewing the record in this case, we have concluded the district court did not err either legally or factually in dismissing this case and refusing to add Judge Simpson as a defendant. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 14.
. The Honorable Diana E. Murphy, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stump v. Sparkman et vir, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978)
- Taylor v. M. M. (Hoot) Gibson, 529 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Lowenschuss v. W. Publ'g Co., 542 F.2d 180 (3d Cir. 1976)