Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, reviewed a summary judgment dismissing a physician's defamation suit against a newspaper publisher. The physician alleged that describing his indictment for illegal distribution of biphetamine and obedrin as involving "narcotics" was defamatory because those substances were central nervous system stimulants rather than narcotics in the technical sense. The court held that the article was substantially true as a matter of law and affirmed the judgment without reaching the defendant's conditional-privilege and First Amendment defenses.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the newspaper article's description of Rosen's indictment as involving narcotics was substantially true despite the technical distinction between narcotic drugs and central nervous system stimulants.
- Whether a genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment on Rosen's defamation claim.
- Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment without considering the defendant's conditional-privilege and First Amendment defenses.
Holdings
- The article was substantially true as a matter of law because it reported Rosen's indictment for unlawful distribution of controlled dangerous substances and identified the specific drugs involved, even though those drugs were technically central nervous system stimulants rather than narcotics.
- Summary judgment was proper because there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning the truth or substantial truth of the article, and the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Key quotations
“If the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and exhibits submitted in connection with the motion for summary judgment reveal that there exists no genuine issue of material fact, a summary judgment should be granted as a matter of law.” (at 513-514)
“We find no genuine issue of material fact and the judgment sustaining the motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's suit is correct.” (at 516)
Factual background
Dr. Isadore I. Rosen, a physician in Amite, Louisiana, was indicted by a Tangipahoa Parish grand jury for alleged unlawful distribution of biphetamine and obedrin. The Baton Rouge Morning Advocate, owned and published by Capital City Press, reported that Rosen had been indicted on five counts of illegal distribution of narcotics, while also identifying the specific substances involved. Rosen alleged that calling the substances narcotics was defamatory because they were central nervous system stimulants rather than technically defined narcotics and sought damages for reputational and professional harm.
Procedural history
Rosen sued Capital City Press for damages based on a newspaper article reporting that he had been indicted on narcotics counts. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting substantial truth, conditional privilege, and First Amendment protection. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the suit; the Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed.