Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D's counterclaim involves five allegedly defamatory statements: (1) P's statement on or about August 9, 2010 that d 'voted for a health care bill that includes taxpayer-funded abortion.'; (2) P's planned billboard, made public on September 28, 2010, which stated: 'D voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.'; (3) P's statement released on October 7, 2010: 'It is a fact that D has voted for a bill that includes taxpayer funding of abortion.'; (4) P's other statement of October 7, 2010 that D 'ordered Lamar Companies not to put up the billboards until the matter was settled by the Ohio Elections Commission.'; and (5) P's radio ad, which started running on or about October 19, 2010, stating: 'D voted for taxpayer funding of abortion when he cast his vote for the health care reform bill . . . D voted for taxpayer funding of abortion.' D alleges that the statements defamed him by impugning his professional reputation as a pro-life Member of Congress and by falsely characterizing his performance and conduct while in office. P maintains that he suffered reputational and other economic damage. P moved for summary judgment claiming the statements are protected opinion, they are not capable of defamatory meaning and not false or made with actual malice.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co