![]() The Superior Court granted Oath’s motion to dismiss. The articles discuss an “intelligence report” from a “well-placed Western intelligence source” with information that Page met with senior Russian officials and discussed potential benefits to Russia if Donald Trump won the presidential election. The remaining seven articles were written by HuffPost non-employee “contributors” (the “Contributor Articles”). ![]() Three other articles were written by employees at (“HuffPost”) and refer to the Isikoff Article (the “Employee Articles”). Michael Isikoff authored a Yahoo! News article that forms the backbone of the amended complaint (the “Isikoff Article”). Carter Page, a public figure with ties to President Trump’s 2016 campaign, claimed that Oath Inc.’s online news organizations published eleven defamatory articles about him in 20. SEITZ, Chief Justice, for the Majority: Dr. Bloom, Esquire, HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, New York, New York, for Defendant Below, Appellee Oath Inc. Parker, Esquire (argued), HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, Richmond, Virginia, and Jonathan D. Choa, Esquire, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Elbert Lin, Esquire, David M. ![]() Lawson Pedigo, Esquire, MILLER KEFFER & PEDIGO, PLLC, Dallas, Texas, for Plaintiff Below, Appellant Carter Page. McMurtry, Esquire (argued), HEMMER DEFRANK WESSELS, PLLC, Ft. Bellew, Esquire, BELLEW LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Todd V. Upon appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware: AFFIRMED. S20C-07-030 Submitted: OctoDecided: JanuBefore SEITZ, Chief Justice VALIHURA, VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices, constituting this Court en Banc. 79, 2021 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware C.A. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CARTER PAGE, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Because these grounds dispose of Page’s defamation claims, the Supreme Court did not address any of the trial court's other grounds for dismissal. Finally, Page did not contest the superior court’s holding that the Employee Articles were true. Page also failed to allege that the individuals responsible for publication of those articles acted with actual malice. After review, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, finding that "t a minimum, the article is substantially true, and as such, Page did not state a claim for defamation based on that article." Page also failed to state a claim for defamation with respect to the remaining articles. Page appealed the judgment except the superior court’s ruling that the Employee Articles were true. The Superior Court granted Oath’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Isikoff Articles and Employee Articles were either true or substantially true Page was at least a limited purpose public figure, meaning he was required to plead actual malice by the individuals responsible for publication, and he failed to meet that standard the fair report privilege for government proceedings applied and Oath was protected for the Contributor Articles under the federal Communications Decency Act. The articles discussed an “intelligence report” from a “well-placed Western intelligence source” with information that Page met with senior Russian officials and discussed potential benefits to Russia if Donald Trump won the presidential election. Michael Isikoff authored a Yahoo! News article that formed the backbone of the amended complaint (the “Isikoff Article”). Carter Page, a public figure with ties to President Trump’s 2016 campaign, claimed that defendant-appellee Oath Inc.’s online news organizations published eleven defamatory articles about him in 20.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |