Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Hatfill v. New York Times Co.

416 F.3d 320 (2005)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...

Hatfill v. New York Times Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

416 F.3d 320 (2005)

Facts

In fall 2001, news organizations and members of Congress received envelopes containing lethal anthrax powder. Contact with these letters led to the deaths of five people. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began working to identify and arrest the culprit. Nicholas Kristof, an editorial columnist employed by the New York Times Company (the Times) (defendant), criticized the FBI’s handling of the case, particularly its investigation of a person he referred to as Mr. Z. Kristof believed that circumstantial evidence connected Mr. Z to the anthrax mailings and thought the FBI was not pursuing Mr. Z vigorously enough. The columns included various assertions about Mr. Z. Kristof wrote that federal investigators and many scientists suspected Mr. Z was involved in the anthrax mailings; Mr. Z was familiar with powdered anthrax and current on anthrax vaccinations; Mr. Z failed multiple polygraph examinations; trained bloodhounds had responded to Mr. Z, his girlfriend, their apartments, and nothing else; and Mr. Z was likely involved in prior anthrax incidents. The columns did not highlight any other suspects and provided information that could only refer to Mr. Z. In August 2002, Kristof identified Mr. Z as scientist Dr. Steven Hatfill (plaintiff). Hatfill sued under Virginia defamation law, arguing that the columns defamed him by implying he was responsible for the five anthrax-related murders. The district court dismissed the defamation claim because it found the columns were not capable of being reasonably understood as accusing Hatfill of mailing the anthrax or showing Kristof intended to accuse Hatfill of doing so. Hatfill appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Shedd, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership