*1 reopen ing his clas- refusal to him the by 1625.4. Section sification PAPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, Frank However, events No letter was sent. occurring request subsequent to the TIME, INCORPORATED,Defendant- reopening put on notice of defendant Appellee. Acknowledgment of re- board’s action. No. 17488. given ceipt request was United States Court of Thereafter, on October board Seventh Circuit. began,
processing for civilian work Dec. re- defendant was December designate quested type of civilian On work favored in lieu of induction. he meeting February 13, he had a And, to discuss civilian work. board
finally, issued. the order shown, prejudice and de- believe sufficiently aware fendant was made reopen request the classifica- v. United
tion had been denied. Yeoman
States, (10th Cir. 1968).
Finally, defendant relies 1660.20(a), (b), (c),
violation of Section
(d) to conviction. seek a reversal of his provides,
Each subsection there gard in re orders,
to civilian work is- such orders shall not be regis- prior
sued time that
trant would have been ordered re-
port for had induction if he not been I-O, he
classified unless Class
volunteered for such work. provision
The basis of this con- that a objector scientious should not called work,
for civilian if he would military
at that time been ordered for duty. appeared upon Defendant’s name delivery January 16, 1967, list of
be ordered to for induction had civilian been classified I-A. The
work order was issued three months
later, May, the is- 1967. We believe sufficiently
suance on that date satisfies Dunne, Chicago, Ill., Patrick W. Rob the mandate that de- of Section 1660.20 Chicago, Nolan, Hladis, ert J. J. Edward sequence. fendant be do called in Ill., Nolan, Chicago, O’Malley Dunne, & requiring not read that Section as Ill., appellant. eligible defendant have been Gunnels, Reuben, Don H. Lawrence May, order of induction in Ellis, Coffield, Kirkland, Michael W. order issued. Masters, Hodson, Chaffetz Cravath, Ill., Medina, Jr., Affirmed. Harold R.
981
Y.,
City,
porated,
1963)
652,
(7 Cir.,
N.
318
655
Moore,
York
New
Swaine
judgment
we
the
appellee.
reversed
and remanded
of
the case for further
In that
Judge,
DUFFY,
Circuit
Before
Senior
opinion we stated:
“We
that
Judges.
KERNER,
and
Circuit
KILEY
risk,
Time took the
when it reworded
parts
Report,
of the Commission
that
it
Judge.
DUFFY,
Senior
* * *
might go
far,
jury
too
A
brought by
libel
is a suit
This
beyond
find that Time went
the limit of
officer,
Chicago
plaintiff,
police
fairness here and in
was
Time,
publisher
against
Incorporated,
the
protected
privilege
its
of fair com-
Magazine.
plain-
of
claim
of Time
ment,
making
and that
in
its article more
story printed in
upon a
tiff
is based
interesting
audience,
and readable
Magazine
of November
date
under
departed
fidelity
from
to the Commis-
appeal
from an order
This
1961.
Report.”
sion
granting,
at
of the District Court
remand,
Supreme
After
Court
evidence, a directed
of
all
close of
United States decided New York
favor
defendant.
in
verdict
Sullivan,
Times Co. v.
84
policeman in
Pape
March
became a
(1964).
the article must have known state- the cause is remanded for only Pape’s conduct were ments as further complaint allegations suit.” civil Reversed and remanded. time, the author the Time Since article, Magnuson, one Edward F. testified. admits that when he wrote He KILEY, Judge (concurring). Re- article he knew Commission’s Judge I Duffy’s concur in opinion that port stated that assaults gone this jury. case should have family upon Monroe and were based my It testimony view that allegations. such made Magnuson, Judge Duffy’s referred to in Magnuson police reporter former was a opinion, prima was sufficient facie to Minneapolis Tribune and he testi- prove published that Time the article in meaning of fied he knew the the word knowledge suit “with “alleged.” was false.” “complaint” and of the word publication The of the article with However, Magnuson deliberately words in report the Commission deliber- knowingly mention in article failed to ately omitted reasonably could found story be conduct publication to be a of “a and action of and the knowledge with allegation officers on an in a was based it was false.” This met the test of New pending in a suit. civil Times 376 concerned We are here with (1964), under which either Time’s falsification what falsity or reckless disre- than the falsification said rather gard of whether the material is false or story about Monroe incident. Sure not proof ele- vital ly, act of can show a deliberate omission ment of agree “actual malice.” I act commission. malice as an well as progeny the case of New York Times Co. mention the fact Time omitted changed Sullivan has not written, Pape article was Court’s test. reported in “Jus Monroe incident was allegations complaint, effect tice” as the Commission report alleged injury proven give And the did fact. Time to it was to stating Com in Time’s additional reader value. true, in reported article that incident does not contain the qualifications various re the Commission stead the Commission urges ported which Time it as true. us now respect to an amounted this context which the through false Monroe-Pape treated the “intent to inflict harm in- cident. We must consider the
hood.” Garrison v. Time ar- published. ticle (1964); as it