Home/Louisiana Court of Appeal/Matassa v. Bel

Matassa v. Bel

156 So. 2d 250, 1963 La. App. LEXIS 1919
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJuly 1, 1963
DocketNos. 1143, 1144
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 156 So. 2d 250 (Matassa v. Bel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matassa v. Bel, 156 So. 2d 250, 1963 La. App. LEXIS 1919 (La. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

SAMUEL, Judge.

These two suits, consolidated for trial and to be decided by one judgment in the district court and consolidated for argument here, are for an alleged libel arising out of an advertisement which appeared in The Times-Picayune, a morning newspaper, and the New Orleans States-Item, an afternoon newspaper, on March 2, 1962. With the exception of the fact that one of the suits is based on the advertisement in The Times-Picayune and the other is based on the same advertisement in the New Orleans States-Item, both suits are identical in every respect.

Mr. Matassa, the plaintiff who was a state representative, and Mr. Clyde F. Bel, one of the defendants and the incumbent seeking' re-election, were candidates in a second primary election to be held on March 3, 1962 for the office of Constable of the First City Court of the City of New Orleans and the advertisement was published as a part of the Bel political campaign. In addition to Mr. Bel, the defendants are the chairman of his campaign committee, who with Bel is alleged to have caused the advertisement to be published, and the publisher of both newspapers involved, The Times-Picayune Publishing Company. That company was succeeded by The Times-Picayune Publishing Corporation and the corporation, herein referred to as “publisher”, has been substituted as a party defendant.

The two individual defendants filed exceptions of no cause of action and the publisher filed a motion for a summary judgment. There was judgment in the trial court maintaining the exceptions and dismissing the suits as to the individual defendants. The trial court also granted the [252]*252motion and rendered a summary judgment in favor of the publisher, dismissing the suits as to it. Plaintiff has appealed.

Tlie original advertisement is annexed to> and made part of the petitions and the following is a photostat thereof:

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

Related

Atherton v. Rosteet Law Firm
137 So. 3d 1246 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
Chris Atherton D/B/A Atherton Intercontinental Concerts v. Rosteet Law Firm and Sidney Rosteet
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014
Kihneman v. Humble Oil & Refining Company
312 F. Supp. 34 (E.D. Louisiana, 1970)
Bienvenu v. Angelle
223 So. 2d 140 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1969)
Matassa v. Bel
164 So. 2d 332 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 So. 2d 250, 1963 La. App. LEXIS 1919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matassa-v-bel-lactapp-1963.