Kendall v. Daily News Publishing Co.
39 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2353
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2011Background
- Kendall sued the Virgin Islands Daily News and writers Blackburn and Tsidulko for defamation based on articles published April 2004–February 2009.
- The nine-count amended complaint targeted Kendall’s bail rulings in Castillo cases, an editorial urging resignation, a retirement article, and other pieces; Kendall claimed these statements were false and defamatory.
- A March 16, 2010 jury verdict awarded Kendall $240,000 against the Daily News and Blackburn on some claims, but the Superior Court subsequently granted a directed verdict for the defendants.
- On May 27, 2010 the Superior Court entered judgment for the Daily News and Blackburn, finding no evidence of actual malice sufficient to sustain a defamation claim against them.
- Kendall appealed, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Kendall failed to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence; the court applied Bose independent review and upheld dismissal of defamation claims except where not at issue on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kendall proved actual malice for the Castillo bail articles. | Kendall argues the articles implied knowledge of his Castillo history. | Daily News/Blackburn contend no evidence of intent or reckless disregard. | Insufficient evidence of actual malice; verdict affirmed. |
| Whether Kendall proved actual malice for the Ashley Williams article. | Kendall argues misreporting shows undisclosed sources and fabrication. | News relied on official sources and firsthand observation; no malice proven. | Insufficient evidence of actual malice; verdict affirmed. |
| Whether Kendall proved actual malice for the April 17, 2007 editorial. | Editorial presents factual assertions implying misconduct. | Editorial constitutes protected opinion based on disclosed facts. | Editorial is constitutionally protected opinion; no actual malice shown. |
| Whether Kendall proved actual malice for the February 18, 2009 retirement article. | Headline suggested pending complaints remained unresolved. | Headline based on article context; no actual malice shown. | No clear and convincing evidence of actual malice; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984) (actual malice standard for public officials; independent review when required)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (concerning falsity and actual malice in defamation)
- Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989) (reckless disregard requires high degree of awareness of falsity)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968) (deliberate falsification or reckless publication essential to recovery)
- Dodds v. American Broad. Co., 145 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 1998) (clear and convincing evidence required for actual malice in defamation)
- Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279 (1971) (erroneous interpretation of facts does not prove actual malice)
- Redco Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 758 F.2d 970 (3d Cir. 1985) (opinion unfounded when disclosed facts exist; protected if based on facts)