Herbert v. Lando
Significance, Significant Facts, The State Of The Law In 1979, The Court's Analysis
Petitioner
Anthony Herbert
Respondents
Barry Lando, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
In a libel suit, a plaintiff should have the right to discover and inquire into the editorial process and states of mind of those responsible for the publication, in order to meet plaintiff's burden of proving "actual malice."
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Jonathan W. Lubbell
Chief Lawyer for Respondents
Floyd Abrams
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
18 April 1979
Decision
The Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the district court's ruling. The Court held that defendants have no privilege under the First Amendment which would bar a plaintiff from inquiring into the editorial process or states of mind of those involved in the alleged libel, if the inquiry was tailored to the production of evidence considered material to plaintiff's necessary burden of proof.
Further Readings
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
Additional topics
- Hicklin v. Orbeck - Significance, Work For Residents Only, Many States, One Nation, Whose Resources Are They?
- Harris v. McRae - Significance, The Hyde Amendment, Back At The District Court, Returning To The Supreme Court
- Herbert v. Lando - Significance
- Herbert v. Lando - Significant Facts
- Herbert v. Lando - The State Of The Law In 1979
- Herbert v. Lando - The Court's Analysis
- Herbert v. Lando - Dissent On The Scope Of Discovery
- Herbert v. Lando - Impact
- Herbert v. Lando - Related Cases
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1973 to 1980