Somerville v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins.
149 F.2d 836, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 144, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2696
Opinion
One part of the language on which the plaintiff relied in this action for libel was incapable of a defamatory meaning. The other part was obviously true. Regardless of the defense of privilege, therefore, the District Court was right in directing a verdict for the defendant. Meyerson v. Hurlbut, 68 App.D.C. 360, 362, 98 F.2d 232, 118 A.L.R. 313; Sullivan v. Meyer, 67 App. D.C. 228, 91 F.2d 301; cf. Sullivan v. Meyer, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 141 F.2d 21.
Affirmed
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Somerville v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins., 149 F.2d 836, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 144, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2696 (D.C. Cir. 1945).
149 F.2d 836 (Somerville v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Harold R. Olinger v. American Savings and Loan Association
409 F.2d 142 (D.C. Circuit, 1969)
Curtis Publishing Company v. Harry H. Vaughan
278 F.2d 23 (D.C. Circuit, 1960)
Williams v. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
185 F.2d 1005 (D.C. Circuit, 1950)