Adams v. Daily Telegraph Printing Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Adams v. Daily Telegraph Printing Co.

367 S.E.2d 702, 295 S.C. 218, 15 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1672, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 44

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 25, 1988

Docket22866

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 367 S.E.2d 702 (Adams v. Daily Telegraph Printing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Daily Telegraph Printing Co., 367 S.E.2d 702, 295 S.C. 218, 15 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1672, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 44 (S.C. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Reference is had to the opinion of the Court of Appeals 1 for a full statement of the facts. We affirm the result, but clarify one matter in the opinion.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals shall not be read to hold that qualified privilege applies only in the case of a public figure or official. Although a First Amendment privilege extends only to an action by a public figure or official, there are numerous other qualified privileges which may apply to a private person. Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 113, pp. 805-7; § 115 (5th ed. 1984). This Court has repeatedly so held. See, e.g., Abofreka v. Alston Tobacco Co., 288 S. C. 122, 341 S. E. (2d) 622 (1986); Duckworth v. First National Bank, 254 S. C. 563, 176 S. E. (2d) 297 (1970); Jones v. Garner, 250 S. C. 479, 158 S. E. (2d) 909 (1968); Cullum v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 228 S. C. 384, 90 S. E. (2d) 370 (1956).

We, of course, express no opinion on its applicability to this litigation, upon trial.

Affirmed as modified.

1

292 S. C. 273, 356 S. E. (2d) 118 (Ct. App. 1987).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Reference is had to the opinion of the Court of Appeals 1 for a full statement of the facts. We affirm the result, but clarify one matter in the opinion.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals shall not be read to hold that qualified privilege applies only in the case of a public figure or official. Although a First Amendment privilege extends only to an action by a public figure or official, there are numerous other qualified privileges which may apply to a private person. Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 113, pp. 805-7; § 115 (5th ed. 1984). This Court has repeatedly so held. See, e.g., Abofreka v. Alston Tobacco Co., 288 S. C. 122, 341 S. E. (2d) 622 (1986); Duckworth v. First National Bank, 254 S. C. 563, 176 S. E. (2d) 297 (1970); Jones v. Garner, 250 S. C. 479, 158 S. E. (2d) 909 (1968); Cullum v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 228 S. C. 384, 90 S. E. (2d) 370 (1956).

We, of course, express no opinion on its applicability to this litigation, upon trial.

Affirmed as modified.

1

292 S. C. 273, 356 S. E. (2d) 118 (Ct. App. 1987).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 S.E.2d 702, 295 S.C. 218, 15 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1672, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-daily-telegraph-printing-co-sc-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack