Opinion ID: 1234258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The State Funds Remark.

Text: Hernstadt next argues that, as a matter of law, the following question could not be found to be a statement of fact: [I]f the candidate doesn't pay his political bills, what is he going to do with State money? It is conceded that defamation may occur in the form of a question, but the remark is challenged on two other grounds. First, it is contended that it is at worst a statement of opinion; second, it is argued that the remark cannot be defamatory because it is speculative, dealing with future events rather than existing facts. Using the analysis of the Restatement, which both parties adopt, the remark is susceptible of being interpreted as a statement of defamatory fact. The first clause of the remark implies that Allen did not pay his political bills. This is the meaning that Hernstadt concedes he intended to convey. Regardless of whether the second clause is opinion or speculation, the first clause is a factual statement and would be actionable under the Restatement.