|
3917 REVIEW DENIED A statement that the speaker thought plaintiff, a priest, was there to help a decedent prior to her death but "... he was there to help himself" when made in connection with a claim that the priest had unduly influenced the decedent to change her trust to make him the beneficiary implied deceit and chicanery and was an assertion of fact with a defamatory meaning; a plaintiff who has done nothing to inject himself into a public controversy in an effort to influence public opinion is not a public figure merely by virtue of being a member of the clergy and is not required to establish actual malice in an action for defamation; a statement suggesting that a parish priest took unfair advantage of an elderly parishioner who reportedly suffered from dementia involves a public issue, requiring the person claiming to be defamed by it to prove falsity.CitationGALLAGHER v CONNELL (Defamed Priest) 123 CA4 1260 [See: CCP 425.16; Campanelli v Regents 44 CA4 572, T/AT 5/96; NY Times v Sullivan 376 US 254; Khawar v Globe 19 C4 254, T/AT 12/98; Gertz v Robert Welch Inc 418 US 323; Philadelphia Newspapers v Hepps 475 US 767; NizamAldine v City 47 CA4 364, T/AT 8/96]
|
|
