Opinion ID: 769131
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: An asserted fact

Text: 17 In order for there to be liability, we must first confirm that the statement made is one capable of being defamatorythat is, the statement is factual--and not merely an expression of opinion. The First Amendment protects opinions under certain conditions. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-40 (1974); Jefferson County School Dist. v. Moody's Investor's Servs., Inc., 175 F.3d 848, 852-54 (10th Cir. 1999). Certain expressions of opinion implicitly contain an assertion of objective fact, and such statements are not exempt from a defamation claim. See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1990); Gertz, 418 U.S. at 339-40. 18 New Mexico has adopted the following guidelines in an initial determination of whether a publication constitutes an opinion: 19 [T]he crucial difference between statement of fact and opinion depends upon whether ordinary persons hearing or reading the matter complained of would be likely to understand it as an expression of the speaker's or writer's opinion, or as a statement of existing fact. 20 Machiondo v. Brown, 649 P.2d at 472 (quoting Mashburn v. Collin, 355 So.2d 879, 885 (La. 1977) (footnote omitted)). Whether the statement in question is one of fact or opinion is a question of law. See id. 21 To determine whether the statement is one of fact or opinion, we first inquire whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the quotation of Dr. McCabe's statement implied an assertion that Dr. Schwartz had engaged in stock fraud. See Jefferson County School Dist., 175 F.3d at 853. We also must consider whether the publication of the statement that Dr. Schwartz was being sued for stock fraud was sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false. Id.; see Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 21. 22 The plain and ordinary meaning of the statement that Dr. Schwartz was being sued for stock fraud implied that Dr. Schwartz had perhaps engaged in stock fraud. In addition, the statement is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false. Jefferson County School Dist., 175 F.3d at 853. We determine as a matter of law that the statement that Dr. Schwartz was being sued for stock fraud is an unambiguous statement of fact, and that Mr. McCormick was attempting to convey, not interpret, what Dr. McCabe said.