Moldea v. New York Times Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
22 F.3d 310 (1994)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Investigative journalist and author Dan Moldea (plaintiff) wrote a book called Interference. The New York Times Company (Times) (defendant) published a book review that criticized Interference for containing “too much sloppy journalism.” The review cited several examples of the book’s journalistic shortcomings. Moldea sued the Times for defamation. The district court granted summary judgment to the Times, and Moldea appealed. The court of appeals reversed the district court, finding that some of the characterizations in the Times review were potentially actionable because those characterizations could be factually verified for truth or falsity. The court of appeals therefore concluded that the district court could not properly rule that the characterizations were true as a matter of law. The Times filed a petition for rehearing, and the court of appeals reconsidered its decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edwards, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
