HERSH KARP ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, ETC., 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 Karps sued The Miami Herald for libel over an article reporting they faced deportation for illegal entry. The trial court granted summary judgment for the newspaper, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the record conclusively showed either the statements were substantially true or the newspaper was not negligent.
The court affirmed summary judgment, holding that the evidentiary record conclusively established the absence of negligence. The distinction between being 'charged' versus having investigation proceedings underway was not material, and the newspaper's reliance on an official source with a history of accuracy, combined with reasonable efforts to contact the plaintiffs, established the absence of negligence as a matter of law.
[1] Summary judgment is especially appropriate in libel cases where facts are not essentially in dispute due to the chilling effect of libel suits on First Amendment freedoms…
[2] In libel cases, a plaintiff must show that the alleged defamatory statements were false and that the defendant acted with some degree of fault in writing and publishing t…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To recover compensatory or actual damages under the United States Supreme Court holding in Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, [94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789] (1974), Plaintiffs are required to show the alleged defamatory statements were false, and in addition, that Defendant acted with some degree of fault in the writing and publication of the article.”
Establishes the two-part test plaintiffs must satisfy to recover libel damages: falsity and fault.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Miami Herald reporter received information from an Immigration and Naturalization Service officer about the Karps facing deportation. The article st…
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 First Amendment Freedoms cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, Hersh Karp and Ogenia Karp, brought an action against the appel-lee, The Miami Herald Publishing Company, for damages in libel. After extensive discovery, the trial judge entered a summary final judgment for the defendant newspaper publisher. The trial judge noted that summary judgment is especially appropriate in libel cases where the facts are not essentially in dispute because of the chilling effect of libel suits upon First Amendment freedoms. See Washington Post Company v. Keogh, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 32, 365 F. 2d 965 (1966).
The applicable law as set out by the trial judge has been agreed to by the parties in their briefs.1
There remains for determination only the question of whether the evidentiary facts before the trial judge on the motion for summary judgment conclusively show: (1) that it appears without genuine issue that the published statements were true, or (2) that it appears without genuine issue that the newspaper was not negligent.
It appears without controversy that the newspaper reporter was called by an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who gave to the reporter information pertaining to the plaintiffs. It further appears that the officer was well known to the reporter and had given the reporter accurate information in the past. The substance of the newspaper article was that the plaintiffs faced deportation after being “charged” by Immigration officials with illegally entering this country. The plaintiffs showed that no charges were actually filed. The immigration official stated in his deposition that the published article accurately reflected the facts that he gave the reporter. The noted discrepancy in the matter of a charge is not material in that the immigration official stated that proceedings for an investigation were under way. The dissemination of the information was pursuant to the policy of the Immigration Service. It also appears without conflict that the reporter made reasonable efforts to contact the plaintiffs for their version of the circumstances prior to publication.
Based upon this state of the record, the trial judge correctly held, under the applicable law, that there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning the absence of negligence.
Affirmed.
. “1. To recover compensatory or actual damages under the United States Supreme Court holding in Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, [94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789] (1974), Plaintiffs are required to show the alleged defamatory statements were false, and in addition, that Defendant acted with some degree of fault in the writing and publication of the article. In Firestone v. Time, Inc., 305 So. 2d 172 (Fla.1974), rev’d, 424 U.S. 448, [96 S.Ct. 958, 47 L.Ed.2d 154] (1976), Order on Mandate, 332 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1976), it was held the degree of fault applicable to defamation cases brought by private plaintiffs in negligence.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974)
- Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976)
- The Wash. Post Co. v. Keogh, 365 F.2d 965 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
- Firestone v. Time, Inc., 305 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1974)
- Firestone v. Time, Inc., 332 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1976)