Mr. Chow of New York v. Ste. Jour Azur S.A.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
759 F.2d 219 (1985)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Saint Jour Azur S.A., Gault, and Millau (defendants) published a restaurant guide containing a review for a restaurant called Mr. Chow. The review stated that it was impossible to fit the condiments on the table; that the sweet-and sour pork contained more dough than pork; that the green peppers were still frozen; that the rice was soaking in oil; and that the Peking Duck consisted of only one dish rather than the traditional three. Mr. Chow of New York (plaintiff), the owner of Mr. Chow, sued the defendants for libel. The trial court instructed the jury that if any of these six statements from the review were false, defamatory, and made with malice, the defendants would be liable for libel. The jury found in favor of Mr. Chow of New York, awarding it $20,000 in damages. The defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the court denied the motion. The defendants appealed. On appeal, they argued that their review was protected speech because it was opinion. Additionally, they argued that there was insufficient evidence of malice to support the jury’s verdict.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Meskill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.
