CALDER v. JONES
United States Supreme Court, 1984.
465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, U.S.Cal.,1984
Facts: Respondent Shirley Jones brought suit in California Superior Court claiming that she had been libeled in an article written and edited by petitioners in Florida. This article was published in the National Enquirer, a newspaper distributed throughout the United States.
Jones brought suit on the National Enquirer, the distributing company, editor and writer in California. Editor and writer contest jurisdiction. Enquirer and distributing company do not.
Procedure: Appellate Court decided for Jones. Defendant appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground of a violation of the due process clause.
Issue: If the target of an article is located in a different state than where the writer and editor created the story, can they be haled into a different state to answer for their article’s claims?
Held: Yes
Analysis: Court held that jurisdiction was proper over the writer and editor because their alleged tortuous actions were aimed at California. They wrote and edited an article they knew could have a devastating impact on the Π. They knew the brunt of what they wrote would be felt by Πin her home State of California. Therefore, petitioners must, “reasonably anticipate being haled into court there†to answer for the truth of the statements made in their article.
They caused a harmful effect in California, which meant they made contact with Cal.
The Court affirms the decision of the Appellate Court.
United States Supreme Court, 1984.
465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, U.S.Cal.,1984
Facts: Respondent Shirley Jones brought suit in California Superior Court claiming that she had been libeled in an article written and edited by petitioners in Florida. This article was published in the National Enquirer, a newspaper distributed throughout the United States.
Jones brought suit on the National Enquirer, the distributing company, editor and writer in California. Editor and writer contest jurisdiction. Enquirer and distributing company do not.
Procedure: Appellate Court decided for Jones. Defendant appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground of a violation of the due process clause.
Issue: If the target of an article is located in a different state than where the writer and editor created the story, can they be haled into a different state to answer for their article’s claims?
Held: Yes
Analysis: Court held that jurisdiction was proper over the writer and editor because their alleged tortuous actions were aimed at California. They wrote and edited an article they knew could have a devastating impact on the Π. They knew the brunt of what they wrote would be felt by Πin her home State of California. Therefore, petitioners must, “reasonably anticipate being haled into court there†to answer for the truth of the statements made in their article.
They caused a harmful effect in California, which meant they made contact with Cal.
The Court affirms the decision of the Appellate Court.