Opinion ID: 495066
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the applicability of the new york times actual malice test

Text: 15 The defendant contends that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 8 precludes Sheriff Corley's liability for the defamation of the plaintiff. The defendant argues that without a showing that the Sheriff published anything about the plaintiff and without a showing of actual malice on the Sheriff's part, the plaintiff was barred from prevailing against the sheriff. We find no merit to this argument. In Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 9 the Supreme Court held that a newspaper publisher is liable, under traditional doctrines of respondeat superior, for the defamatory reports of its employees. 10 The publisher is liable because it authorized the reports. If Sheriff Corley authorized Graeter's defamatory remarks, then the reasoning of Cantrell applies with equal force to this case. The plaintiff does not have to prove that Sheriff Corley acted with actual malice.