real estate MEMORANDUM OF LAW

real estate MEMORANDUM OF LAW - INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OF...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OF LAW TO: Professor Christine M. English RE: DEFAMATION From: Robert C Brown Jr. Date: December 13, 2006 Case: Jake Carson v. Tom Harris Office File Number 12-132006 Docket Number: none at this time no action has been filed STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT You asked me to do a preliminary analysis outlining the statutory requirements regarding the grounds for removal of tenants, required notice to tenants prior to removal, causes for eviction or non-renewal of a lease, and liability for wrongful eviction. SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS ISSUE 1. Is it actionable per se as slander to announce that a person has tested HIV positive when the statement is not true. CONCLUSION I believe that our client has a case because based on the legal doctrine of slander, any individual victimized by a slanderous statement made by another that implicates (a) criminal behavior, (b) a loathsome disease , (c) unchastity of a woman, or (d) behavior inconsistent with one’s trade
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
or profession, does not have to prove any actual damages suffered from the statement. ISSUE II. Although Mr. Harris claims that his statement that our client was HIV positive was made in jest, would the words give raise to an action for slander? CONCLUSION The false light invasion tort is designed to protect the individual's peace of mind from not having to appear before the public "in an objectionable false light or false position." 1 Although Mr. Harris was joking his words still gave raise to an action for slander. ISSUE III. Could our client be considered a public official or public figure in a slander action brought by him, and, if he is considered a public official or public figure, will it make any difference in the lawsuit? CONCLUSION In New Jersey, it is clear that in actions for public defamation i. e. defamatory statements against a public official involving a matter of legitimate public concern, the plaintiff must prove each of the following five (5) 1 Romaine, supra , 109 N.J. at 294, 537 A. 2d 284 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts , § 652E, comment b). 2
Background image of page 2
elements by clear and convincing proof: 1) The statements must be defamatory statements of fact. 2) The statements must concern the plaintiff. 3) The plaintiff must prove the defamatory statements were false. 4) The plaintiff must prove the defamatory statements were communicated to persons other than the plaintiff. 5) Plaintiff must prove that defendants communicated the false statements to others with the actual knowledge that it was false or with a reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 9

real estate MEMORANDUM OF LAW - INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OF...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online