Hanley v. Tribune Pub. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--2875,73--2875 |
| Citation | 527 F.2d 68 |
| Parties | Tom HANLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, d/b/a The Oakland Tribune, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Charles L. Garner, Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellant.
Beckley, Singleton, De Lanoy & Jemison, Las Vegas, Nev., for defendant-appellee.
Before MERRILL and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge.
By this diversity action brought in the district of Nevada, appellant, a resident and domiciliary of Nevada, seeks recovery of general damages for an alleged libel first published by defendant-appellee May 4, 1969. 1 Defendant-appellee is engaged in the publication of a newspaper in Oakland, California, and sells and distributes its publications in the state of Nevada. The complaint did not claim that special damages were suffered by the plaintiff. It failed to allege any demand by plaintiff for retraction of the alleged libel. An unusual choice of law question is presented by the appeal.
Under California statute law at the time of the publication, a plaintiff could recover no more than special damages unless correction of the alleged libel was demanded and was not forthcoming, Calif.Civil Code § 48a(1). At the time of the publication, Nevada statute law did not have such a provision. A statute to that effect had, however, been passed by the Nevada Legislature, and approved by the governor on April 14, 1969 (three weeks before the publication) 2 with an effective date of July 1, 1969 (some two months after the publication). 3
The district court concluded that the Nevada conflict of laws rule would follow that set forth in the Restatement of the Law (Second), Conflict of Laws § 379e (Tentative Draft No. 9, 1964). 4 We agree. By this rule the law to be applied is that of the state having the most significant relationship with the parties and the communication, and ordinarily would be that of the domicil of the plaintiff. Comment a to § 379e of the Restatement was quoted by the district court to this effect:
In determining the state with which an issue has its most significant relationship, attention should be directed, among other things, to the kind of tort involved and to the purpose (sought) to be achieved by the relevant tort rules of the interested states.
Proceeding in accordance with this rule the court determined that the substantive law of California should apply. It stated:
In this instance, the State of California has significant contacts with the parties and the communications. It is the state of defendant's incorporation and principal place of business. It is the state where the newspaper is composed, printed and published. The most significant factor, however, is that at the time of the publications, the Legislature of the State of Nevada had declared the public policy of this state to be identical with that of California. Chapter 310 of the (1969) Statutes of Nevada was approved by the Governor on April 14, 1969. True, under N.R.S. 218.530, the law did not become effective until July 1, 1969, but it, nevertheless, in May constituted an established announcement of the legislative purpose and intent. In this situation, it is appropriate that the law of the State of California should be selected to sustain the declared and identical public policies of both states with respect to actionable defamation.
When appellant failed, after leave, to amend his complaint to allege special damages or demand for retraction, the court dismissed his action against the Tribune for failure to state a claim. 5 In this we feel the court erred.
As the district court recognized, under choice of law principles the respective substantive rules under consideration traditionally compete on the basis of the interests of the respective states with regard to the particular controversy. Reich v. Purcell, 67 Cal.2d 551, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727 (1967); Casey v. Manson Construction and Engineering Co., 247 Or. 274, 428 P.2d 898 (1967). In the case of tort actions, relevant factors include the nature of the wrong that is alleged; the place where the harm was actually suffered; the place where the extent of injury can best be appraised. Restatement of the Law (Second), Conflict of Laws § 145 and Comments thereto. In cases of defamation, these factors normally would call for application of the law of the plaintiff's domicil. Restatement of the Law (Second), Conflict of Laws § 150(2). Ordinarily, it is there, if anywhere, that plaintiff can be said to enjoy a reputation; and there, if anywhere, that reputation would suffer injury by the accused writing. Restatement of the Law (Second), Conflict of Laws § 150, Comment e reads in part:
Rules of defamation are designed to protect a person's interest in his reputation. When there has been publication in two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kamelgard v. Macura
...Cir.1995) (Texas law); Reeves v. American Broadcasting Cos., 719 F.2d 602, 605 (2d Cir.1983) (New York law); Hanley v. Tribune Publishing Co., 527 F.2d 68, 70 (9th Cir.1975) (Nevada law); Restatement, supra, § 150(2) and comment e (1971). But see Wainwright's Vacations LLC v. Pan American A......
-
Gutierrez v. Collins
...358 F.Supp. 1065 (D.Nev.1973) (Lex loci ), Vacated on other grounds, 556 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1977), But cf. Hanley v. Tribune Pub. Co., 527 F.2d 68 (9th Cir. (Nev.) 1975) (Restatement); Donahue v. Warner Bros. Pictures, 194 F.2d 6, 22-24 (10th Cir. (Utah) 1952) (Lex loci ); Pioneer Credit Co......
-
Black v. Leatherwood Motor Coach Corp.
...S.C. 249, 136 S.E.2d 303, 305 (1964); Ball v. Ball, 73 Wyo. 29, 269 P.2d 302, 304 (1954). On Nevada law, compare Hanley v. Tribune Pub. Co., 527 F.2d 68, 69 (9th Cir.1975) (assuming without deciding that Nevada would adopt the Second Restatement "significant contacts" test) and Laxalt v. Mc......
-
Gallagher v. MaternityWise Int'l
...plaintiff can be said to enjoy a reputation, and there that such reputation would suffer by the accused writing. Hanley v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 527 F.2d 68, 70 (9th Cir. 1975); Restatement (2d) Conflict of Laws § 150(2) & cmt. e.Miracle v. New Yorker Magazine, 190 F. Supp. 2d 1192, 1198 (D. ......