Case ID: sw2d_861/html/0326-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Earl W. CAREY, Appellant, v. The ST. LOUIS JOURNALISM REVIEW, et al., Respondents.
    No. 63661.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Aug. 17, 1993.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 16, 1993.
    Earl W. Carey, Pro Se.
    Lewis C. Green, Bruce A Morrison, Kathleen G. Henry, St. Louis, for respondents.
    Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his libel petition for failure to state a claim. We find no error of law appears and affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Appellant’s primary argument is his petition does state a claim for both libel per se and libel per quod. However, after reviewing the petition, we find it did not state a claim for libel per se. The petition did not include allegedly libelous statements which directly injured his profession by “imputing] a want of knowledge, skill, capacity, or fitness to perform or discharge his duties.” Morton v. Hearst Corp., 779 S.W.2d 268, 271[3] (Mo.App.1989); See also, Capobianco v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 812 S.W.2d 852, 856[4, 5] (Mo.App.1991); Greening v. Klamen, 652 S.W.2d 730, 735[13-16] (Mo.App.1983).

In addition, Appellant’s petition fails to state a cause of action for libel per quod. It does not allege special damages with the particularity required for such an action. See, Swafford v. Miller, 711 S.W.2d 211, 216-17[11] (Mo.App.1986).

We find an extended discussion of Appellant’s points would have no precedential value and affirm by written order.