|
4426 In a defamation action, even if the plaintiff is a public figure, falsity need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence; a public figure suing for defamation must prove actual malice (i.e, that defendant fabricated its statements or entertained serious doubts about their truth when making them) by clear and convincing evidence; evidence that plaintiff was not under investigation for mail fraud permits an inference that defendant could not have heard from a postal employee that plaintiff was under such investigation, but the inference does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence.CitationCHRISTIAN v ALNOR (Mail Fraud) 148 CA4 71 [See: CCP 425.16; CivC 45; NY Times v Sullivan 376 US 254; Curtis v Butts 388 US 130; Annette F v Sharon S 119 CA4 1146, T/AT 8/04; Copp v Paxton 45 CA4 829, T/AT 6/96]
|
|
