Yeagler v collegiate times brief

Yeagle's assertion that the phrase connotes a lack of integrity in the performance of her duties also fails and, therefore, cannot properly be considered as the basis for a defamation action. We awarded Yeagle an appeal limited to the question whether the trial court erred in holding that, as a matter of law, the phrase "Director of Butt Licking" cannot convey a defamatory meaning.

Yeagle v. Collegiate Times

The phrase also prejudices Yeagle in her profession. Gates and Gill, Va. Applying this principle, a statement that an attorney did not report certain payments cannot be extended by inference to mean that the attorney acted improperly, for purposes of a defamation action. The threshold issue, whether the complained of phrase including inferences fairly attributable to it could reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about Yeagle and, therefore, be actionable defamation, is a matter of law to be resolved by the trial court.

The article was complimentary of Yeagle and the program with which she was associated. The text of the article surrounded a block quotation in larger print attributed to Yeagle.

School official loses libel suit over false derogatory title

In this case, the phrase "Director of Butt Licking" is no more than "rhetorical hyperbole. Thus, speech which does not contain a provably false factual connotation,[1] or statements which cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about a person cannot form the basis of a common law defamation action.

All reasonable factual inferences fairly and justly drawn from the facts alleged must be considered in aid of the pleading. Joshua Wheeler; Robert M. In this case, as we have said, the litigated phrase itself cannot be taken as asserting actual facts about Yeagle.

See also Freedlander v. Richmond Newspapers, Va. Furthermore, considering the phrase at issue in the context of the entire article, see Richmond Newspapers, Inc. According to Yeagle, such an implication is defamatory per se because it suggests that she 2 A statement is defamatory per se if it 1 imputes the commission of a criminal offense involving moral turpitude for which a party may be convicted; 2 imputes that the person is infected with a contagious disease which would exclude the party from society; 3 imputes an unfitness to perform the duties of a job or a lack of integrity in the performance of the duties; or 4 prejudices the party in her profession or 5 performs the duties of her job in an artificial, shallow, or other manner that generally lacks integrity, and it prejudices her in her career.

For these reasons, I dissent and would reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings. O'Neil, Charlottesville, on briefamici curiae, in support of appellee. While "every fair inference" in a pleading may be used to determine whether the words complained of are capable of a meaning ascribed by innuendo, inferences cannot extend the statements, by innuendo, beyond what would be the ordinary and common acceptance of the statement.

We awarded Yeagle an appeal limited to the question whether the trial court erred in holding that, as a matter of law, the phrase "Director of Butt Licking" cannot convey a defamatory meaning. Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. Yeagle's assertion that the phrase connotes a lack of integrity in the performance of her duties also fails and, therefore, cannot properly be considered as the basis for a defamation action.

YEAGLE v. COLLEGIATE TIMES

The text of the article surrounded a block quotation in larger print attributed to Yeagle. Yeagle argues that the demurrer should have been overruled and the case resolved by a jury because the phrase at issue conveys factual information and thus can support her action for defamation.

Similarly, we have recognized that words used to describe a member of a labor union in the course of a labor dispute, while "disgusting, abusive, [and] repulsive," will not support a cause of action for defamation for the same reason—they could not "reasonably be understood The phrase also prejudices Yeagle in her profession.

The issue in this appeal is whether the phrase "Director of Butt Licking" conveys any defamatory factual information about Yeagle.

The phrase is a factual assertion regarding Yeagle s job performance and imputes to her an unfitness to perform the duties of her job or lack of integrity in the performance of such duties. According to Yeagle, such an implication is defamatory per se because it suggests that she performs the duties of her job in an artificial, shallow, or other manner that generally lacks integrity, and it prejudices her in her career.

Finally, she argues that, even if the phrase is not defamatory per se, it is actionable defamation because it injures her reputation and holds her up to ridicule, citing Adams v. In this case, as we have said, the litigated phrase itself cannot be taken as asserting actual facts about Yeagle. Newsletter Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements.

In fact, the trial court recognized that this title conveys the inference that Yeagle "cultivates favors from others or directs those who do. Vector Resources Group, Ltd. As part of her responsibilities, she facilitated the participation of students in the Governor's Fellows Program.

See also Freedlander v. While the trial court must determine as a matter of law whether this phrase is defamatory per se, Chaves v. Causes of action for defamation have their basis in state common law but are subject to principles of freedom of speech arising under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the Constitution of Virginia.

Vector Resources Group, Ltd. The United States Supreme Court has identified constitutional limits on the type of speech that may be the subject of common law defamation actions. The article was complimentary of Yeagle and the program with which she was associated.

The statements could not reasonably be understood to convey a false representation of fact. Sharon D. Yeagle was an assistant to the Vice President of Student Affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, where she “facilitated the participation of students in the Governor’s Fellowship Program.” In an article in The Collegiate Times, Virginia Tech’s student.

Sharon Yeagle, an assistant to the vice president of student affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, sued the Collegiate Times, the university's student newspaper, after a caption beneath a block quotation attributed to Yeagle identified her by the fictitious title.

The Collegiate Times, the University's student newspaper, published an article describing the University's successful placement of students in the program. The text of the article surrounded a block quotation in larger print attributed to Yeagle. Beneath the quotation, the phrase "Director of Butt Licking" was printed under Yeagle's name.

in the supreme court of the commonwealth of virginia _____ sharon d. yeagle appellant, v. the collegiate times appellee. _____ amici curiae brief. View YEAGLE v. COLLEGIATE TIMES from LAW LAW at Baker College.

YEAGLE v. COLLEGIATE TIMES | S.E.2d () | thesanfranista.com Page 1 of 3 LAWYER LOGIN Home / Browse Decisions /. The Collegiate Times, the University's student newspaper, published an article describing the University's successful placement of students in the program.

The text of the article surrounded a block quotation in larger print attributed to Yeagle.

Yeagler v collegiate times brief
Rated 0/5 based on 15 review
Yeagle vs Collegiate Times Defamation Case