Court Opinion

ID: 9462891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:52:48.306498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:50.270649
License: Public Domain

HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge
(dissenting):
I would affirm for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court. Sauerhoff v. The Hearst Corporation, 380 F.Supp. 117.
I join the majority opinion in its statement of deference to the district judge in the interpretation of Maryland law in this rather quixotic area, but my deference to his interpretation of that law is not selective.
The district court held:
1) That under the law of Maryland, this, at most, was a libel per quod, for it did not appear in the article that the plaintiff was married;
2) That in Maryland a libel per quod is not actionable unless special pecuniary damage is alleged and proven; and
3) That under Maryland law there are no exceptions to the special damage requirement in libel per quod actions; there are no special categories which would be treated as libels per se.
I think he is correct in his interpretation of Maryland law, but this leaves no room for a conclusion that under Maryland law this article has somehow become libel per se and not libel per quod.