Opinion ID: 2258942
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of the Constitutional Analysis to the Facts of this Case

Text: We do not believe that it is necessary to revisit the current vitality of Riley in view of Milkovich because Riley is distinguishable from the case before us. Aside from the fact that Mr. Riley  unlike Dr. Kanaga  was a public official and therefore a showing of malice would be required, [18] the Riley court expressly distinguishes the case where, as here, there are implied assertions of fact. The Court in Riley concluded: To support a cause of action for libel, the underlying facts must be false as well as defamatory. When an opinion is accompanied by its underlying nondefamatory factual basis, a defamation action premised upon that opinion will fail no matter how unjustified, unreasonable or derogatory the opinion might be.... This is so because readers can interpret the factual statements and decide for themselves whether the writer's opinion was justified. [19] In Riley, the plaintiff was a New Castle County Councilman suing The News Journal and its columnist for libel. The defendants published a column about ties between politicians and persons with commercial interests. The column stated that Riley enjoyed a golf outing with developer Albert Marta and afterwards seemed more understanding of Marta's [development] plan.... This Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment by the trial court, concluding that the statement about the golf outing was not defamatory and that the statements were constitutionally protected expressions of pure opinion. As the Riley Court noted, a statement of opinion would be actionable if it implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion. [20] Unlike the facts in Riley, we are faced with that situation in the case before us where the entire context of the published statements, considered from the viewpoint of the average reader, [21] may imply a false assertion of fact.