Legal Document

477 U.S. 242 106 S.Ct. 2505 91 L.Ed.2d 202 Jack ANDERSON, et al., Petitionersv.LIBERTY LOBBY, INC. and Willis A. Carto. No. 84-1602. Argued Dec. 3, 1985. Decided June 25, 1986. Syllabus In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 254, 84 710, 11 686, it was held that, in a libel suit brought by public official (extended later cases to figures), the First Amendment requires plaintiff show that publishing alleged defamatory statement defendant acted with actual malice. It further such malice must be shown "convincing clarity." Respondents, nonprofit corporation described as "citizens' lobby" its founder, filed action Federal District Court against petitioners, alleging certain statements magazine published petitioners were false derogatory. Following discovery, moved for summary judgment pursuant Rule of Civil Procedure 56, asserting because respondents figures they required prove their case under standards proper absent matter law view an affidavit author articles question had been thoroughly researched facts obtained from numerous sources. Opposing motion, claimed issue presented relied on patently unreliable sources preparing articles. After holding applied limited-purpose figures, entered ground author's investigation research his reliance precluded finding Reversing allegedly statements, Appeals requirement proved clear convincing evidence need not considered at stage, respect those improperly granted jury could reasonably have concluded allegations defamatory, false, made Held: The did apply correct standard reviewing Court's grant judgment. Pp. 247-257. (a) Summary will lie if dispute about material fact is "genuine," is, reasonable return verdict nonmoving party. At trial judge's function himself weigh determine truth but whether there genuine trial. There no unless sufficient favoring party essence, inquiry presents disagreement require submission or so one-sided one prevail law. 247-252. (b) A court ruling motion this guided "clear convincing" evidentiary determining exists, might find clarity. 252-256. (c) may defeat defendant's properly supported without offering any concrete which favor merely disbelieve denial movant has burden showing fact, thereby relieved own producing turn would support verdict. 256-257. 241 U.S.App.D.C. 246, 746 F.2d 1563, vacated remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, dissenting opinion, post, p. 257. REHNQUIST, BURGER, C.J., joined, 268. David J. Branson, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Mark Lane, respondents. Justice WHITE Court. 1 279-280, 725-726, 686 (1964), we official, malice—"with knowledge reckless disregard not." We Id., 285-286, S.Ct., 728-729. See also Gertz Robert Welch, Inc., 418 323, 342, 94 2997, 3008, 41 789 (1974). These requirements since extended suits well. See, e.g., Curtis Publishing Butts, 388 130, 87 1975, 18 1094 (1967). 2 This clear-and-convincing-evidence 56 Rules applies. United States Columbia Circuit stage. 1563 (1984). certiorari, 471 1134, 105 2672, 86 691 (1985), conflict decisions several other Courts Appeals, judgment.1 now reverse. 3 * Respondent Liberty Lobby, not-for-profit self-described lobby." Carto founder treasurer. October 1981, Investigator two articles: "The Private World Carto" "Yockey: Profile American Hitler." introduced third, shorter article entitled "America's Neo-Nazi Underground: Did Mein Kampf Spawn Yockey's Imperium, Book Revived Carto's Lobby?" portrayed neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, Fascist. 4 Respondents diversity Columbia, some 28 illustrations Named defendants petitioner Anderson, publisher Investigator, Bill Adkins, president chief executive officer Co., itself. 5 56. asserted are set forth Times. Petitioners latter assertion, submitted Charles Bermant, employee longer articles.2 affidavit, Bermant stated he spent substantial amount time researching writing wide variety He all times believed still contained truthful accurate. Attached appendix detailed each libelous. 6 opposed judgment, inaccuracies claiming virtue unreliable. Generally, charged failed adequately verify information before publishing. William McGaw, editor told Adkins publication "terrible" "ridiculous." 7 first therefore applied.3 then Bermant's thorough Thus, 8 On appeal, affirmed 21 reversed 9 statements. Although noted challenge thus Times, nevertheless purposes evidence, rather than preponderance irrelevant: To based conclusion perception impose greater "would change threshold search minimum supporting plaintiff's evaluation weight (it seem) least uncontroverted well." U.S.App.D.C., 253, F.2d, 1570. held, nine "a conclude . malice." 260, 1577. II Our erred heightened proof 56(c) provides "shall rendered forthwith pleadings, depositions, answers interrogatories, admissions file, together affidavits, any, moving law." By very terms, mere existence factual between parties otherwise judgment; fact. 10 As materiality, substantive identify material. Only disputes over affect outcome governing preclude entry Factual irrelevant unnecessary counted. generally 10A C. Wright, Miller, & M. Kane, Practice § 2725, pp. 93-95 (1983). materiality independent separate incorporation into determination. That while determination rests law, law's identification critical governs. Any imposed germane inquiry, only criterion categorizing relation legal elements claim evaluating underpinnings disputes. More important present purposes, National Bank Arizona Cities Service 391 88 1575, 20 569 (1968), antitrust where conspiracy. 56(e)'s provision opposing " 'may rest upon denials pleading, specific trial.' observed 12 "[i]t true entitle proceed resolved conclusively existence; rather, judge resolve parties' differing versions trial." U.S., 288-289, 1592. 13 went hold face conspiracy get "any significant probative tending complaint." 290, 1593. 14 Again, Adickes S.H. Kress 398 144, 90 1598, 26 142 (1970), emphasized availability turned presented. There, issues private persons enforcement officers. defendants, stating minded jurors draw inference reversed, pointing out submissions foreclosed possibility "it open infer circumstances" meeting minds. 158-159, 1608, 1609. 15 prior uniformly recited same language describing enough our recent stage Adickes, supra, Service, indicate, If colorable, Dombrowski Eastland, 387 82, 1425, 577 (1967) (per curiam ), significantly probative, 1592, granted. 16 focus strongly suggested 56(e) when made,4 adverse "must trial."5 And, above, shall make findings fact.6 performed trial—whether, words, can finder either 17 suggest, agree, mirrors directed 50(a), direct if, Brady Southern R. 320 476, 479-480, 64 232, 234, L.Ed. 239 (1943). minds differ import however, should directed. Wilkerson McCarthy, 336 53, 62, 69 413, 417, 93 497 (1949). long ago said Improvement Munson, Wall. 442, 448, 867 (1872), repeated: "Nor judges submit having proof, character warrant Formerly what called scintilla bound leave jury, high authority established more rule, every case, left preliminary judge, literally it, whom onus imposed." (Footnotes omitted.) 19 Pleasants Fant, 22 116, 120-121, 780 (1875); Coughran Bigelow, 164 301, 307, 117, 119, 442 (1896); Pennsylvania Chamberlain, 288 333, 343, 53 391, 394, 77 819 (1933). party." Sartor Arkansas Gas Corp., 321 620, 624, 724, 727, 967 (1944). And "genuine issue" "very close" "reasonable jury" standard: primary difference motions procedural; usually decided documentary admitted." Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. NLRB, 461 731, 745, n. 11, 103 2161, 2171, 76 277 though, same: B Progressing convinced involved necessarily implicates merits. run-of-the-mill civil moves lack ask thinks unmistakably favors side fair-minded position insufficient; plaintiff. therefore, unavoidably asks verdict—"whether [evidence] Wall., 448. terms nature different consideration acquittal criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt applies guilt beyond doubt. Jackson Virginia, 443 318-319, 99 2781, 2788-2789, 61 560 (1979). Similarly, mandates standard, disposing consider factfinder conclude, example, 23 proposition higher corresponding effect deciding send well Second Taylor, 464 240 (2d Cir.1972), overruled Feinberg, 140 592 Cir.1944), necessary both even though demanding proceedings. Speaking through Judge Friendly, said: "It seem blush—and think second—that 'facts evidence' needed allow [reasonable pass claim] proponent establish [the doubt." 242. "satisfying explanation Feinberg why place prosecution proceedings sending jury." Ibid. Taylor pointed almost Circuits adopted something like Prettyman's formulation Curley States, 160 229, 232-233 (D.C.Cir.1947): 24 passing acquittal, giving full play right credibility, justifiable inferences mind fairly concludes doubt mind, motion; or, state another way, doubt, results, possible, let decide matter." 25 equally applicable Indeed, thought implicit adoption kinds "concomitant duty 243. produce results many cases, say never do so. Just clarity" relevant verdict, When exists figure, bear quantum quality liability For affidavits insufficient caliber quantity rational evidence. 27 prism burden. mandated here not. Whether party, cannot defined except criteria enable defendant: makes sense benchmark govern deliberations within boundaries ultimate decision fall, these provided standards. clear-and-convincing taken account does denigrate role jury. means authorizes affidavits. Credibility determinations, weighing drawing legitimate functions, non-movant believed, drawn favor. 1608-1609. Neither suggest courts act caution granting deny reason believe better course Kennedy Silas Mason 334 249, 68 1031, 92 1347 (1948). 29 sum, given case. stages. Consequently, applies, applying defendant. concerns malice, clearly appropriate record not.7 III 30 argue, whatever applicability seldom ever him witnesses issue. They rely Poller Broadcasting System, 368 464, 82 486, 458 (1962), proposition. understand Poller, juror might, legally could, itself allegation Based Rule, 1593, recently said, "discredited testimony [normally] basis contrary conclusion." Bose Corp. Consumers Union 466 485, 512, 104 1949, 1966, 80 502 Instead, affirmative order likely possession defendant, opportunity conduct discovery. repeat, plaintiff, survive so, IV 31 exists—that Because vacate remand consistent opinion. 32 ordered. 33 dissenting. 34 today holds "whether case," ante, 255.1 my view, analysis deeply flawed, shaky foundation unconnected unsupported observations, assertions, conclusions. Moreover, I am unable divine how considered, actually supposed Accordingly, respectfully dissent. 35 burdens, appropriately begins 56(c), states appears "no purports restate asserts "summary 'genuine,' Ante, 248 No cited "genuine" "reasonable" non-moving quotes defeated "sufficient trial," not, defending pleadings. citing unstartling "the turn[s] [is] presented," reasserts, again authority, presented, "that 250. maintains "mirrors" context 50(a): 251-252. 36 Having "one-sided," "reasonably" "fair-minded" ibid., concludes: 37 "Whether standards." 254-255. 38 far discern, conclusion, heart reached benefit Although, cites simply stand inquire "one-sidedness" parties. propriety conspired violate laws. whether, record, boycott. produced. agreeing lower circumstantial take "one fact" produced illegal agreement, single petitioner's theory liability. Critically, "[t]he hand peculiar difficulties crucial namely conspiracy." 289, are, particular Sherman Act. Term, discussing laws, characterized Monsanto Spray-Rite 465 752, 1464, 79 775 (1984), "antitrust limit[ed] range permissible ambiguous ." Matsushita Electric Industrial Zenith Radio 475 574, 588, 1348, 1356, 89 538 (1986) (emphasis added). "one-sided." contrary, Matsushita, most cite discuss "some metaphysical facts." 586, 1356.2 39 Nor way overwhelmingly supports count appropriate. white schoolteacher, maintained employees police her rights protected Fourteenth refusing serve lunchrooms she accompanied number black schoolchildren. She maintained, among things, arranged arrested vagrancy premises. deposition communicated agreed service arrested, explaining store challenged race fearful reaction customers served racially mixed group. Chief Police arresting officers denying manager requested deposition, conceded communication relying allegations. papers complaint, unsworn policeman refusal serve, who subsequently arrest. Plaintiff argued sequence events "created 157, 1608. 40 agreed, courts, reasoning "did carry failure foreclose awaiting service, understanding served." Despite none materials met 56(e), nonetheless meet initial Specifically, negate suggesting circumstances 'meeting minds' refused service." permissibly presence restaurant. done affirm, reverse, admissible petitioner, rebut reach entitled, again, restaurant making agreement employee. infer, carried production demonstrating lunchroom, inappropriate. 42 surprising majority "there 249. was, course, plaintiff; unrebutted assertion room constitutional violation. Like suggests cause action, permitted theory. found, effect, prima facie case; neither intimation "significantly probative," "merely colorable," suggestion once satisfying Yet hold, relying, part, cases.3 43 explained REHNQUIST dissent, see 271, agree position. result product exercise akin child's game "telephone," message repeated person another; after time, bears little resemblance originally spoken. test, repetition, original increasingly distorted. 44 But concern unsupported; all, views supportable. troubled sends conflicting signals deal day-to-day basis. court's responsibility considering instructing "consider" standards, fails explain means. assess decide? clues mysteries, fear lead increased confusion district appellate courts. 45 replete boilerplate motions: 46 "[I]t matter. 47 "Our favor." 255. 48 surely understood invitation—if instruction—to much would: 49 "When ., evidence." 254 50 "[T]he 251-252 51 plaintiff." 252. 52 square direction "is evidence" "quantum" "caliber quantity" "quantum." quantity," i.e., importance value, light "quantum," "required," would, today's decision, new rule—for brand procedure—will transform meant provide expedited "summary" procedure full-blown paper hard me imagine responsible counsel, aware assessing presenting, risk responding coming muster client's really grave raised concerning litigants 54 be, suggests, 270-271, practical effect. I, one, plausibly bearing jury—i.e., out—but withstand motion. Imagine breach contract. If, produces purported eyewitness discussed unequivocally denies enter contract, come presumably go 100 eyewitnesses, stuck witness, holding, jury? although hypothetical contract tells us, "ask presented." Is there, jury," "so law"? Would witness convicted perjurer? instead garden-variety claim, sued fraud theory, requiring evidence? 55 seems unpersuasively doing raises host difficult troubling questions adequate solutions. What particularly unfair mess instance, with; appeals struggle clean up us. directly (and underlying claim) needs fail regardless meet. convincing," proves point preponderance, determine. read been, erode constitutionally enshrined undermine usefulness procedure, remain. 57 THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, 58 apparently intellectual tidiness, mistakenly decides finders refers "substantive standard," procedural engrafted onto Calder Jones, 783, 1482, 804 59 "[w]e already declined contexts special protections defamation actions addition embodied laws." 790-791, 1487-1488. 60 believe, mistake failing newly announced rule Instead illustrating works, contents abstractions paraphrases abstractions, sounds treatise cooking someone cooked intention starting now. large class all. Suppose, concedes Witness testifies reporter wrote story she, reporter, absolutely checking real doubts examination brings conviction perjury. 62 May malice? Surely says, states: "Credibility determinations nonmovant 63 proceeds trial, close A, duly impeached perjury conviction. addition, observe demeanor noticed fidgets answering questions, eyes shift floor ceiling, manifests indicia traditionally attributed perjurers. verdict? not; dealing "credibility determinations." 65 puts testimony, three alleges checked accuracy people meeting, took witnesses. Each categorically 66 Certainly appreciably weakened disinterested witnesses, hope quickly credibility exclusively body. 67 posed, application hypothesize, sort outcome? Cases posed essentially documentary, testimonial; related involving 52(a) prerogative Anderson Bessemer City, 470 564, 1504, 1512, 518 (1985). affords guidance whatsoever what, abstract propounds merit willing admit Learned Hand's observation 592, 594 (CA2), cert. denied, 322 726, 943, 1562 (1944), "[w]hile practicable" "distinguish satisfy men, men doubt[,] run line them too thin day use." approves overruling Friendly's (1972). entirely point, differs former "beyond doubt," easier distinguish normal "preponderance intermediate analyzing exact analog process Perhaps closest comparable device screening unmeritorious area grand proceeding, comparison obviously fours. allowing government element offense, probable cause. Mechanik, 66, 70, 938, 941-942, (1986). used lenient doubt" employed 70 differentiated burdens vague impressionistic probably bench logical analytical convey, mind; previously 71 "Candor degree, efforts analyze lay differences tests largely academic exercise. decisionmaking unknowable, factfinding shared countless thousands individuals throughout country. assume Addington Texas, 441 418, 424-425, 1804, 1808, 323 (1979) 72 engraft (a always regarded raising see, La Riviere EEOC, 682 1275, 1277-1278 (CA9 1982) (Wallace, J.)), great mischief benefit. erratic inconsistent before. created hinting cases. Rebozo Washington Post 637 375, 381 (CA5), 454 964, 102 504, 379 (1981); Yiamouyiannis 619 932, 940 449 839, 101 (1980); Carson Allied News 529 206, 210 (CA7 1976). short, introductory written Bermant. 351, 3012, (1974), summarized figure apply: "[The figure] designation alternative bases. instances individual achieve pervasive fame notoriety becomes contexts. commonly, voluntarily injects controversy limited issues. prominence resolution questions." found respondents, political lobbyists, second type court—a figure. Waldbaum Fairchild Publications, 201 306, 627 1287, 1292, 898, 266, 128 (1980). address placed Celotex Catrett, 317, 2548, 265 here, discussion initially requisite qualified 56(f)'s discover essential opposition. ample extremely helpful court. Hutchinson Proxmire, 111, 120, 9, 2675, 2680, (1979), "does readily lend disposition" acknowledgment general reluctance "to 1487-1488, confined arises litigation press, "in burden." 254. dissenting, feels remind consistently extend suits. nothing kind. changes litigants, litigation. "heightened," Presumably, "quantum quality" quality, motions, irrespective subject suit. Writing dissent test namely, '[w]here whole trier 'genuine 599, 1363. shift, today, looking "rational" intended significance, aspects dissenters argued: ". [T]he summarizes 'courts permit factfinders conspiracies implausible. .' ----. Such hearing traditional piece standing alone insufficiently justify holdings doctrine construed favorable "If intends give job overturning settled intend pronouncement, refrain using unnecessarily broad confusing language." 600-601, 1363 (footnote omitted). words Matsushita. baffled holding. "[i]f curiam), granted." 249-250. Dombrowski, counsel Internal Security Subcommittee Judiciary Committee Senate "controverted colorable substance" petitioners' 84, 1427. mean colorable; says denied "controverted," controverted, assertions become

Classification Label: 2