Gadsden Times v. Doe
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
345 So. 2d 1361 (1977)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Unknown persons murdered a minister in Gadsden, Alabama, on November 26, 1973. On November 29, the Gadsden Times newspaper (the Times) (defendant) reported that Alabama’s governor had offered a reward of $1,000 for information that would lead to the killers’ arrest. That same day, if not earlier, Troy Gulledge (plaintiff) tipped off the police to key information that eventually cracked the case and led to the arrest and subsequent conviction of several suspects. In announcing these arrests on December 2, the Times reported that unnamed private citizens had supplemented the governor’s reward offer by promising additional rewards totaling $7,000. The governor made good on his promise and paid Gulledge $1,000. However, when no one else stepped forward with reward money, Gulledge, identifying himself only as “John Doe,” sued the Times to collect the balance. Gulledge alleged that he had acted in reliance on receiving the $8,000 in rewards that the Times reported and that the Times had breached a contractual obligation by failing to pay $7,000 of that money. After the trial court denied the Times’ motion for a directed verdict, the jury found the Times in breach of contract and awarded Gulledge $7,000. The Times appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holmes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.