Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kennedy v. Item Co., 34 So. 2d 886.

23 citing documents.

Weatherall v. Department of Health and Human Resources 432 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
(1948), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that, due to the difficulty of proving pecuniary damages in a defamation action, the amount of damages *996 is left largely to the discretion of the trier of fact.
Freeman v. Cooper 390 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
[10] , ; Santana v. Item Co., 192 La.
McHale v. Lake Charles American Press 390 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
" , (1948), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that, due to the difficulty of proving pecuniary damages in a defamation action, the amount of damages is left largely to the discretion of the trier of fact.
Lewis v. Baton Rouge Oil & Chemical Workers Union 387 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
With reference to plaintiff Mr. Johnnie Jones, had there been an identification of him as a shyster lawyer in the article as there had been an identification of the specific lawyer involved in Madison, supra, or Kennedy v. Item Co., Inc., (La.1948) , , or Greenberg v. DeSalvo, (La.App.
Lees v. Smith 363 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
1 Cir. 1971), writ refused; , (1948); Simpson v. Robinson, 104 La.
Francis v. Lake Charles American Press 265 So. 2d 206 La. 1972
405 , (1967), award: $5000.00; , (1948), award: $7500.00; Sas Jaworsky v. Padfield, La.App., (1968), award: $45000.00.
Snowden v. Pearl River Broadcasting Corp. 251 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Greenberg v. Burglass 229 So. 2d 83 La. 1969
among those ‘inalienable rights with which all men, being created equal, are endowed by their Creator.’ A man’s reputation is recognized to be as invaluable, and is given tbe same dignity in the ' Bill of Bights that comprises Article I of our constitution, as his right to due process of law in the protection of his life, liberty, and property (Section 2) ; * * *_* , .
Greenberg v. Burglass 216 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
997 , (1958); Kennedy v. Item Co., Inc., , (1948); , La.App.2d Cir. (1961); , La.App.2d Cir. (1961).
Sas Jaworsky v. Padfield 211 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
(1948), our Supreme Court recognized the difficulty encountered by the plaintiff in proving pecuniary damages sustained by him as the result of defamatory statements made concerning his character.
Cormier v. Blake 198 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
12 , (1960); Giordano v. Tullier, supra; , (1948); Madison v. Bolton, 234 La.
Thompson v. St. Amant 196 So. 2d 255 La. 1967
(1948); Fitzpatrick v. Daily States Publishing Co., 48 La.Ann.
Walker v. Associated Press 191 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
nts must not be motivated by actual malice,' and, further, that `persons holding or aspiring" to public office are not wholly without the protection of the law, since it is generally held that accusations of dishonesty or corruption and imputations of dereliction of duty or misconduct in office are not privileged.'" [ ] A , (1948): "But in securing to themselves this unqualified right, they never intended to place those exercising it wholly beyond the reach of the law and unaccountable for the a
Dyer v. Davis 189 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
997 , ; , ; Martin v. Markley, 202 La.
Matassa v. Bel 164 So. 2d 332 La. 1964
ess,’ is not only qualified by the clause immediately following that ‘any person may speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty,’ but also by the specific guaranty in Section 6 that the courts are open for the redress of injury to reputation by the irresponsible use of the right to freely express one’s sentiments.” , .
Matassa v. Bel 156 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
997 , ; , ; Edwards v. Derrick, 193 La.
State v. Garrison 154 So. 2d 400 La. 1963
291 , ; , .” (Emphasis ours.)
Miller, Smith and Champagne v. Capital City Press 142 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Oakes v. Alexander 135 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
As correctly pointed out in the opinion of our learned brother of the district court, the case of Kennedy v. Item Company, Inc., , (1948) carefully analyzed certain elements and factors that should, of necessity, be taken into consideration with relation to the fixing of damages in cases of libel and slander.
Stevens v. Dowden 125 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
See also, , (assessing damages to an attorney for defamatory statements).
Deshotel v. Thistlethwaite 121 So. 2d 222 La. 1960
997 , , we again stated that fair comment and criticism, sometimes termed the doctrine of qualified privilege, is a valid defense to a civil suit for libel, “but not an available defense where applied to a false statement of fact * * * ”, *22 , ; Martin v. Markley, 202 La.
Madison v. Bolton 102 So. 2d 433 La. 1958
291 , 11 So.2d *1013 593; , , and authorities therein cited; Otero v. Ewing, 162 La.
Cox v. Cashio 96 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
at page 895, our Supreme Court indicated the difficulty of proving pecuniary damages as the result of a malicious or false statement concerning the character or professional ability of a person subjected to such statement, and held that such assessment of damages is left largely to the discretion of t