This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D ran a cover story about shady lawyers. It named P in the following context: Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that some Americans have grown cynical about lawyers -- and the law. What is more, every day's newspaper offers up fresh horror stories. . . . Thanks to painfully slow bar discipline, a northern California lawyer named Jerome Lewis is still practicing law despite a $100,000 malpractice judgment against him in 1970 and a $60,000 judgment including punitive damages in 1974 for defrauding clients of money. . . . P sued D for libel, slander, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. D removed the case to the District Court. The court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of D in that P's libel, slander, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were all bound up into one claim for relief for defamation. The district court held that D's statements about the money judgments against P were protected because they were truthful statements of matters of public record. The district court also granted P's motion for relief from his untimely demand for a jury trial, but then on its own motion reconsidered and denied the motion. From a bench trial, the judge ruled for D and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.