Arthur Stanley Kerns v. Charles McWilliams the Mobile Press Register, Inc., and the United Press International, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Arthur Stanley Kerns v. Charles McWilliams the Mobile Press Register, Inc., and the United Press International, Inc.

435 F.2d 1306, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12357

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided January 15, 1971·No. 29703·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Charles McWilliams, The Mobile Press Register, Inc. and the United Press International, Inc., defendants in this libel suit, were granted leave to take an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b) from an order of the District Court denying their motions for summary judgment.

After considering the briefs and oral arguments we conclude that the order allowing the interlocutory appeal was improvidently granted. Spurlin v. General Motors Corp., 5 Cir. 1970, 426 F.2d 294.

Accordingly, the order heretofore allowing the interlocutory appeal is vacated and the case is remanded for trial on the issues of actual malice defamation and possible damages in accordance with the standards of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. *1307 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 even, though the appellees are not public officials, since they were engaged in a matter of public interest and concern. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 1967, 388 U.S. 130, 152-155, 87 S..Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094; Time, Inc. v. Ragano, 5 Cir. 1970, 427 F.2d 219; Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 5 Cir. 1970, 426 F.2d 858; Wasserman v. Time, Inc., 1970, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 424 F.2d 920; Time, Inc. v. McLaney, 5 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 565, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 1776, 23 L.Ed.2d 239.

Vacated and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM:

Charles McWilliams, The Mobile Press Register, Inc. and the United Press International, Inc., defendants in this libel suit, were granted leave to take an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b) from an order of the District Court denying their motions for summary judgment.

After considering the briefs and oral arguments we conclude that the order allowing the interlocutory appeal was improvidently granted. Spurlin v. General Motors Corp., 5 Cir. 1970, 426 F.2d 294.

Accordingly, the order heretofore allowing the interlocutory appeal is vacated and the case is remanded for trial on the issues of actual malice defamation and possible damages in accordance with the standards of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. *1307 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 even, though the appellees are not public officials, since they were engaged in a matter of public interest and concern. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 1967, 388 U.S. 130, 152-155, 87 S..Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094; Time, Inc. v. Ragano, 5 Cir. 1970, 427 F.2d 219; Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 5 Cir. 1970, 426 F.2d 858; Wasserman v. Time, Inc., 1970, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 424 F.2d 920; Time, Inc. v. McLaney, 5 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 565, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 1776, 23 L.Ed.2d 239.

Vacated and remanded.

Arthur Stanley Kerns v. Charles McWilliams the Mobile Press Register, Inc., and the United Press International, Inc., 435 F.2d 1306, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12357 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

435 F.2d 1306 (Arthur Stanley Kerns v. Charles McWilliams the Mobile Press Register, Inc., and the United Press International, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related