Opinion · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
T. Joseph v. The Scranton Times
629 Pa. 311
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
- Date
- 2014-11-25
- Topic
- general
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT THOMAS A. JOSEPH, THOMAS J. : No. 407 MAL 2014 JOSEPH, ACUMARK, INC., AIRPORT : LIMOUSINE AND TAXI SERVICE INC., : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the : Order of the Superior Court Respondents : : : v. : : : THE SCRANTON TIMES L.P., THE : TIMES PARTNER, JAMES CONMY AND : EDWARD LEWIS, : : Petitioners : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioners, are: a) Whether an appellate court may disregard the foundational rules requiring deference to the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations? b) Whether a court may disregard the First Amendment constraints on defamation actions by concluding that the injury-in-fact liability element of a defamation claim is established without proof of reputational harm caused by defamatory statements? c) Whether a court may disregard the First Amendment constraints on defamation actions by holding that proof of actual malice relieves plaintiffs of their burden to prove injury-in-fact? d) Whether a court may disregard the First Amendment constraints that require a defamation plaintiff to prove falsity and fault on the part of a media defendant and order a retrial on damages only where the record does not establish that a plaintiff met his constitutional burdens?
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed T. Joseph v. The Scranton Times. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 4 opinions
*312 ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioners, are:
a) Whether an appellate court may disregard the foundational rules requiring deference to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations?
b) Whether a court may disregard the First Amendment constraints on defamation actions by concluding that the injury-in-fact liability element of a defamation claim is established without proof of reputational harm caused by defamatory statements?
c) Whether a court may disregard the First Amendment constraints on defamation actions by holding that proof of actual malice relieves plaintiffs of their burden to prove injury-in-fact?
d) Whether a court may disregard the First Amendment constraints that require a defamation plaintiff to prove falsity and fault on the part of a media defendant and order a retrial on damages only where the record does not establish that a plaintiff met his constitutional burdens?