Case Name: Earl W. CAREY, Appellant, v. The ST. LOUIS JOURNALISM REVIEW, et al., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1993-08-17
Citations: 861 S.W.2d 326
Docket Number: No. 63661
Parties: Earl W. CAREY, Appellant, v. The ST. LOUIS JOURNALISM REVIEW, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 861
Pages: 326–326

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.