Shoen v. Shoen, 2012 COA 207

Family rivalry among L.S. Shoen's four eldest sons (Sam, Mark, Joe, Michael) led to insiders/outsiders split and derivative suit against AMERCO; media coverage followed.
Eva Shoen's murder in Telluride (Aug 1990) with evidence of a potential struggle, blood, and injections; Sam was in Arizona at the time.
U-Haul investigators surveilled Sam and relayed unsubstantiated accusations to the Sheriff's Department, including alleged affairs and a confession.
1993–1994: Unsolved Mysteries episode produced new tips; Frank Marquis later confessed to killing Eva; Marquis pled guilty in 1994.
2007 TruTY documentary episode about Eva's murder aired Jan 2008; Mark sued Sam for defamation; court ruled some statements defamatory per se; trial2-week verdict favored Sam.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Choice of law governing the defamation claims	Arizona law should apply	Colorado law applied	Waived; Colorado law applied
Whether the statements involve a public concern	Not a matter of public concern	Yes, public concern governs	Public concern established; higher burden applies
Appropriate burden of proof given public concern	Preponderance sufficient to prove falsity	Clear and convincing required to prove falsity	Heightened burden (clear and convincing) applies; court applied it

Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1964) (speech about public officials; public interest overrides private reputation)
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1975) (public concern about crimes and judicial processes overruns private interests)
McIntyre v. Jones, 194 P.3d 519 (Colo. App. 2008) (public concern standard; limited public figure considerations)
Williams v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 943 P.2d 10 (Colo. App. 1996) (public concern analysis; burden shifts to falsity with higher standard)
Borden v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 935 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1991) (consistency in choice-of-law position; waiver considerations)