Telnikoff v. Matusevitch
Citation | 702 A.2d 230,347 Md. 561 |
Decision Date | 01 September 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 3,3 |
Parties | , 25 Media L. Rep. 2473 Vladimir Ivanovich TELNIKOFF v. Vladimir MATUSEVITCH. Misc., |
Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Arnon D. Siegel (Patrick J. Carome, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Guy Miller Struve, Davis Polk & Wardell, on brief), Washington, DC, for Appellee.
Laura R. Handman, (Lankenau Kovner Kurtz & Outten, L.L.P., on brief), Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae.
Robert D. Balin, on the brief, New York City, for Amicus Curiae.
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., * and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI,* BELL and RAKER, JJ.
The issue presented in this certified question case is whether a particular English libel judgment, under the circumstances presented, is contrary to the public policy of Maryland so that it should be denied recognition under principles of comity.
Vladimir Matusevitch, now a Maryland resident, was born to parents of Belarusan Jewish descent in New York City in 1936. In 1940, Matusevitch moved to Russia where he remained until 1968 when he defected to Norway and received political asylum. Between 1969 and 1992, Matusevitch worked in several countries as a journalist for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), a publicly-funded American corporation that broadcasts to listeners in Eastern Europe and countries formerly under Soviet control. Matusevitch presently works at RFE/RL's corporate headquarters in the District of Columbia.
Vladimir Telnikoff, an English citizen, was born in Leningrad in 1937 and remained there until 1971, when he emigrated to Israel. The following year, Telnikoff began working as a freelance writer and broadcaster for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in London. In 1983, Telnikoff became employed as a journalist at RFE/RL in Munich, Germany.
On February 13, 1984, an article written by Telnikoff was published in the London Daily Telegraph, headed "Selecting the Right Wavelength to Tune in to Russia." The article stated in pertinent part as follows:
In response, a letter written by Matusevitch, entitled "Qualifications for Broadcasting to Russia," was published in the "Sir--Having read 'Selecting the Right Wavelength to Tune in to Russia' (Feb 13) I was shocked, particularly by the part on alleged inadequacies of the BBC's Russian Service recruitment policies.
Daily Telegraph on February 18, 1984. It was as follows (emphasis in original):
"One could expect that the spreading of racialist views would be unacceptable in a British newspaper." 1 After Matusevitch refused to apologize for his February 18th letter, Telnikoff filed a libel action against Matusevitch in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, in London. Matusevitch was absent for the trial on October 5, 1988, and judgment was entered against him in the amount of 65,000 pounds. Subsequently, the High Court of Justice set aside the judgment upon a motion by Matusevitch and set a new trial for May 22, 1989.
At the May 22nd trial, Telnikoff argued that the "natural and ordinary" meaning of the words contained in Matusevitch's letter implied that Telnikoff advocated (1) the use of blood-testing as part of the recruitment policy in the BBC Russian Services, (2) the dismissal of employees of the BBC Russian Service on racial grounds, and (3) racial discrimination and anti-semitic behavior. Matusevitch denied that the letter was defamatory and defended on the ground that the letter constituted "fair comment" on a matter of public interest. 2 Matusevitch did not, however, assert truth as a defense. 3 In reply to Matusevitch's "fair comment" defense, Telnikoff asserted that Matusevitch "had been actuated by express At the conclusion of the trial, the High Court of Justice granted Matusevitch's motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Holding that a "reasonable jury" would find that the alleged libel was "comment," the court explained:
The High Court went on to rule that Matusevitch's comment was objectively "fair," consisted of "a matter of public interest," and that there was no showing of express malice. 5
The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's judgment on On remand, the High Court of Justice instructed the jury on this issue at a trial commencing March 10, 1992. 8 The jury returned a 240,000 pound verdict in favor of Telnikoff, finding that Matusevitch's letter conveyed:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowden v. Caldor, Inc., 81
...... See LeMarc's Management Corp. v. Valentin, 349 Md. 645, 709 A.2d 1222 (1998); Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 347 Md. 561, 594-595, 702 A.2d 230, 246-247 (1997). See also Marchesi v. Franchino, 283 Md. 131, 138-139, 387 A.2d 1129, 1133 ......
-
Apenyo v. Apenyo
......1 See, e.g., Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 347 Md. 561, 702 A.2d 230 (1997) (neither a divorce case nor a custody case); Wolff v. Wolff, supra (divorce); Aleem v. Aleem, ......
-
Montrose Christian v. Walsh, No. 144
....... 5. Baltimore Sun v. Baltimore, 359 Md. 653, 659, 755 A.2d 1130, 1133-1134 (2000), quoting Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 347 Md. 561, 579 n. 15, 702 A.2d 230, 239 n. 15 (1997) . See also Harryman v. State, 359 Md. 492, 503 n. 6, 754 A.2d 1018, 1024 ......
-
Eller Media Co. v. Montgomery County, No. 00571
...... that a court will not decide a constitutional issue when a case can properly be disposed of on a non-constitutional ground.") (quoting Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 347 Md. 561, 579 n. 15, 702 A.2d 230 (1997) ). . 8. The 1968 sign ordinance required that billboards that failed ......
-
It's A Small World After All: Emerging Protections For The U.S. Media Sued In England
...of his or her English libel award in the courts of this country. In the only decisions to address the issue-Matusevitch v. Telnikoff, 702 A.2d 230, 347 Md. 561 (1997), and Bachchan v. India Abroad Publications, Inc., 585 N.Y.S.2d 661 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1992)-American courts have refused to ......
-
To Be or Not to Be, Malice Is the Question: an Analysis of Nebraska's Fair Report Privilege from a Press Perspective
...377. 80. Id. 81. RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF TORTS, Vol. 3, § 611 (1938). 82. 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964). 83. Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 702 A.2d 230, 245 (Md. 1997) (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)). 84. Moreno, 610 N.W.2d at 3......
-
To Be or Not to Be, Malice Is the Question: an Analysis of Nebraska's Fair Report Privilege from a Press Perspective
...377. 80. Id. 81. RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF TORTS, Vol. 3, § 611 (1938). 82. 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964). 83. Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 702 A.2d 230, 245 (Md. 1997) (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)). 84. Moreno, 610 N.W.2d at 3......
-
Brian D. Boone, Bullseye!: Why a "targeting" Approach to Personal Jurisdiction in the E-commerce Context Makes Sense Internationally
...AND PROPOSED FEDERAL STATUTE (proposed final draft, Apr. 11, 2005)). 265 Id. 266 Id. at 67. 267 See, e.g, Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 702 A.2d 230 (Md. 1997), aff'd, No. 95-7138, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 10628, at *2 (D.C. Cir. May 5, 1998) (refusing to enforce British libel judgment on the groun......
-
Foreign Judgments in American and English Courts: a Comparative Analysis
...82. Dart v. Balaam, 953 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. App. 1997); the Restatement, supra note 30, § 482 cmt. f. 83. See Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 702 A.2d 230 (Md. 1997); Neprany v. Kir, 173 N.Y.S.2d 146 (App. Div. 84. Compare the Restatement, supra note 30, § 482(2)(e) and The Uniform Act, supra note 2......