Carey v. St. Louis Journalism Review

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carey v. St. Louis Journalism Review

861 S.W.2d 326, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1275, 1993 WL 308944

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 17, 1993

DocketNo. 63661

StatusPublished

This text of 861 S.W.2d 326 (Carey v. St. Louis Journalism Review) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carey v. St. Louis Journalism Review, 861 S.W.2d 326, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1275, 1993 WL 308944 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his libel petition for failure to state a claim. We find no error of law appears and affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Appellant’s primary argument is his petition does state a claim for both libel per se and libel per quod. However, after reviewing the petition, we find it did not state a claim for libel per se. The petition did not include allegedly libelous statements which directly injured his profession by “imputing] a want of knowledge, skill, capacity, or fitness to perform or discharge his duties.” Morton v. Hearst Corp., 779 S.W.2d 268, 271[3] (Mo.App.1989); See also, Capobianco v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 812 S.W.2d 852, 856[4, 5] (Mo.App.1991); Greening v. Klamen, 652 S.W.2d 730, 735[13-16] (Mo.App.1983).

In addition, Appellant’s petition fails to state a cause of action for libel per quod. It does not allege special damages with the particularity required for such an action. See, Swafford v. Miller, 711 S.W.2d 211, 216-17[11] (Mo.App.1986).

We find an extended discussion of Appellant’s points would have no precedential value and affirm by written order.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his libel petition for failure to state a claim. We find no error of law appears and affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Appellant’s primary argument is his petition does state a claim for both libel per se and libel per quod. However, after reviewing the petition, we find it did not state a claim for libel per se. The petition did not include allegedly libelous statements which directly injured his profession by “imputing] a want of knowledge, skill, capacity, or fitness to perform or discharge his duties.” Morton v. Hearst Corp., 779 S.W.2d 268, 271[3] (Mo.App.1989); See also, Capobianco v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 812 S.W.2d 852, 856[4, 5] (Mo.App.1991); Greening v. Klamen, 652 S.W.2d 730, 735[13-16] (Mo.App.1983).

In addition, Appellant’s petition fails to state a cause of action for libel per quod. It does not allege special damages with the particularity required for such an action. See, Swafford v. Miller, 711 S.W.2d 211, 216-17[11] (Mo.App.1986).

We find an extended discussion of Appellant’s points would have no precedential value and affirm by written order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 S.W.2d 326, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1275, 1993 WL 308944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carey-v-st-louis-journalism-review-moctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack