Time, Inc. v. Firestone: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Handicapper (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
fixed infobox |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox SCOTUS case |
|||
{{SCOTUSCase |
|||
|Litigants=Time, Inc. v. Firestone |
|Litigants=Time, Inc. v. Firestone |
||
|ArgueDate=October 14 |
|ArgueDate=October 14 |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Prior=Florida state court grants $100,000 libel claim for the respondent. Florida Supreme Court affirms. |
|Prior=Florida state court grants $100,000 libel claim for the respondent. Florida Supreme Court affirms. |
||
|Holding=Mary Firestone can collect libel damages from Time, Inc., because she was not a public figure. She had no special prominence in societal affairs, nor did she thrust herself into a controversy to influence its resolution. |
|Holding=Mary Firestone can collect libel damages from Time, Inc., because she was not a public figure. She had no special prominence in societal affairs, nor did she thrust herself into a controversy to influence its resolution. |
||
|SCOTUS=1975- |
|SCOTUS=1975-1981 |
||
|Majority=Rehnquist |
|Majority=Rehnquist |
||
|JoinMajority=Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell |
|JoinMajority=Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
|LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. Amend. I]]; [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. Amend. XIV]]; New York Times, Co. v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254) |
|LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. Amend. I]]; [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. Amend. XIV]]; New York Times, Co. v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254) |
||
}} |
}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
==Background== |
==Background== |
||
Mary Alice Firestone was married to [[Russell A. Firestone, Jr.]], an heir to the [[Firestone Tire and Rubber Company]] family fortune. Mary filed for divorce, and Russell submitted a counterclaim on the grounds of extreme cruelty and adultery. The judge discounted much of the evidence concerning extramarital affairs. Nevertheless, Time, Inc., publisher of [[Time (magazine)|the eponymous weekly news magazine]], ran an article about the affairs, despite evidence to the contrary. Mary filed suit in a Florida state court seeking $100,000 in damages for libel. |
Mary Alice Firestone was married to [[Russell A. Firestone, Jr.]], an heir to the [[Firestone Tire and Rubber Company]] family fortune. Mary filed for divorce, and Russell submitted a counterclaim on the grounds of extreme cruelty and adultery. The judge discounted much of the evidence concerning extramarital affairs. Nevertheless, Time, Inc., publisher of [[Time (magazine)|the eponymous weekly news magazine]], ran an article about the affairs, despite evidence to the contrary. Mary filed suit in a Florida state court seeking $100,000 in damages for libel. |
||
==Court |
==Court cases== |
||
Time alleged that Mary was a public figure and could not recover damages based on the ruling of ''[[New York Times Co. v. Sullivan]]'', which protected media from liability in such suits except in cases where there is knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for truth. Both the state court and Florida Supreme Court ruled that Mary was not a public figure, using language defined in ''[[Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.]]'' (1974). |
Time alleged that Mary was a public figure and could not recover damages based on the ruling of ''[[New York Times Co. v. Sullivan]]'', which protected media from liability in such suits except in cases where there is knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for truth. Both the state court and Florida Supreme Court ruled that Mary was not a public figure, using language defined in ''[[Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.]]'' (1974). |
||
==Decision== |
==Decision== |
||
In a 5-3 decision, with Justice Stevens abstaining, the Supreme Court ruled that Mary was not a public figure and upheld the Florida Supreme Court's decision. |
In a 5-3 decision, with Justice Stevens abstaining, the Supreme Court ruled that Mary was not a public figure and upheld the Florida Supreme Court's decision. |
||
==See also== |
|||
*[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 424]] |
|||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]] |
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]] |
||
Revision as of 20:33, 17 July 2008
| Time, Inc. v. Firestone | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 14, 1975 Decided March 2, 1976 | |
| Full case name | Time, Inc. v. Mary Alice Firestone |
| Citations | 424 U.S. 448 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Florida state court grants $100,000 libel claim for the respondent. Florida Supreme Court affirms. |
| Holding | |
| Mary Firestone can collect libel damages from Time, Inc., because she was not a public figure. She had no special prominence in societal affairs, nor did she thrust herself into a controversy to influence its resolution. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell |
| Concurrence | Powell, joined by Stewart |
| Dissent | Brennan |
| Dissent | White |
| Dissent | Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amend. I; U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; New York Times, Co. v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254) | |
Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning defamation suits against public figures.
Background
Mary Alice Firestone was married to Russell A. Firestone, Jr., an heir to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company family fortune. Mary filed for divorce, and Russell submitted a counterclaim on the grounds of extreme cruelty and adultery. The judge discounted much of the evidence concerning extramarital affairs. Nevertheless, Time, Inc., publisher of the eponymous weekly news magazine, ran an article about the affairs, despite evidence to the contrary. Mary filed suit in a Florida state court seeking $100,000 in damages for libel.
Court cases
Time alleged that Mary was a public figure and could not recover damages based on the ruling of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which protected media from liability in such suits except in cases where there is knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for truth. Both the state court and Florida Supreme Court ruled that Mary was not a public figure, using language defined in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974).
Decision
In a 5-3 decision, with Justice Stevens abstaining, the Supreme Court ruled that Mary was not a public figure and upheld the Florida Supreme Court's decision.