Jefferson v. Chronicle Publishing Co.

Decision Date03 March 1952
Citation108 Cal.App.2d 538,241 P.2d 20
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesJEFFERSON v. CHRONICLE PUB. CO.

PER CURIAM.

Hearing denied.

SCHAUER, Justice (dissenting).

As pointed out in my dissent in Pridonoff v. Balokovich (1951), 36 Cal.2d 788, 798, 228 P.2d 6, the United States Supreme Court has not yet passed on the validity of section 48a of the Civil Code of California.

The question was raised in Werner v. Southern Cal., etc., Newspapers (1950), 35 Cal.2d 121, 216 P.2d 825, 13 A.L.R.2d 252, but after an appeal to the United States Supreme Court was filed (19 U.S. Law Week 3074) and probable jurisdiction noted, 71 S.Ct. 81, the cause was dismissed in the United States Supreme Court on motion of the plaintiff, 340 U.S. 910, 71 S.Ct. 290, presumptively for a consideration paid by the defendants.

My views as to the invalidity of section 48a are expressed in the dissents of Justice Carter and myself as reported in Werner v. Southern Cal., etc., Newspapers (1950), supra, 35 Cal.2d 121, 137, 150, 216 P.2d 825, and in Pridonoff v. Balokovich (1951), supra, 36 Cal.2d 788, 793, 798, 228 P.2d 6.

For the reasons therein stated I would grant a hearing and reconsider the questions raised.

CARTER, J., concurs.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Olson v. Cory
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 25, 1982
    ...Hence we do not even have to consider the effect of Jefferson v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 538, 539, 238 P.2d 1018, 241 P.2d 20 teaching that intermediate tribunals must look to decisions of the California Supreme Court upon questions of federal constitutional b. Issues......
  • Werner v. Times-Mirror Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 1961
    ...§ 48a) 4 unless he could establish special damages. Jefferson v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 108 Cal.App.2d 538, 539, 238 P.2d 1018, 241 P.2d 20. Yet, assuming some of the statements of which the appellant complains in his amended complaint to be libelous in nature, 5 to permit him to recover......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT