Young v. New Haven Advocate
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
315 F.3d 256 (2002)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Young (plaintiff), a Virginia prison warden, sued newspapers the New Haven Advocate (the Advocate) and the Hartford Courant (the Courant), two editors, and two reporters (defendants) for defamation in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Several articles about a Connecticut policy transferring inmates to Virginia prisons, which were published online, implied that Young was racist and encouraged abusing prisoners. The Advocate is a New Haven newspaper with no subscribers in Virginia. The Courant is a Hartford newspaper with eight subscribers in Virginia. Neither newspaper has offices or solicits business in Virginia. The reporters never travelled to Virginia and do not live, work, or have property there, though they did make phone calls to Virginia to conduct interviews. Both newspapers’ websites are geared toward Connecticut residents and make no mention of Virginia. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, asserting that jurisdiction was proper under Virginia’s long-arm statute and constitutional due to the defendants’ online activities. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Michael, 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.
