Jefferson v. Chronicle Publishing Co.

California Court of Appeal

Jefferson v. Chronicle Publishing Co.

238 P.2d 1018, 108 Cal. App. 2d 538, 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1699

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 4, 1952

DocketCiv. 18613

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 238 P.2d 1018 (Jefferson v. Chronicle Publishing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jefferson v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 238 P.2d 1018, 108 Cal. App. 2d 538, 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1699 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinions

VALLÉE, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant, a newspaper publisher, for libel. He did not allege that he had suffered special damage, and admittedly could not cure the omission by amendment. The court sustained defendant’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend on the specific ground it was not alleged that a correction had been demanded as required by section 48a of the Civil Code. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment which followed.

Plaintiff contends section 48a of the Civil Code is violative of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The point has been settled contrary to plaintiff’s contention. Irrespective of our view as to the constitutionality of section 48a, we are bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in Werner v. Southern Cal. etc. Associated Newspapers, 35 Cal.2d 121 [216 P.2d 825, 13 A.L.R.2d 252]. In the Werner case it was held that section 48a is not invalid under either the due process clause or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

As this point was the only one considered by the trial judge, and as it is decisive of the appeal, it is unnecessary to consider other points made by respondent in support of its contention that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Duncan v. Ledig, 90 Cal.App. 2d 7, 14 [202 P.2d 107] ; Estate of White, 69 Cal.App.2d 749, 759 [160 P.2d 204] ; Carter v. Blenkiron, 46 Cal.App. 425, 429 [189 P. 305].)

Affirmed.

Shinn, P. J., and Wood (Parker), J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 3, 1952. Carter, J., and Schauer, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted, and the following opinion was then filed:

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