noting concern that false light action could potentially compromise freedom of the press by "sidestepping the safeguards which restrain the reach of traditional public defamation litigation"
Summary of this case from Pfannenstiel v. Osborne Pub. Co.No. 82-828.
January 17, 1983, OCTOBER TERM, 1982.
Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 55 N. Y. 2d 433, 434 N. E. 2d 1319.
noting concern that false light action could potentially compromise freedom of the press by "sidestepping the safeguards which restrain the reach of traditional public defamation litigation"
Summary of this case from Pfannenstiel v. Osborne Pub. Co.noting "serious concern" that recognition of false light would sidestep safeguards for libel cases
Summary of this case from Cain v. Hearst Corp.redistricting using voter registration not per se unconstitutional
Summary of this case from 94 Op. Att'y Gen. 125Full title:ARRINGTON v. NEW YORK TIMES CO. ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jan 17, 1983
Moore v. Bay, 149 Md. 286, 293, 131 A. 459 (1925). See also DuBois v. City of College Park, 280 Md. 525, 375…
Stern v. Delphi InternetThe Court found that because there was no question that the purpose of the advertisement was to promote sales…