This document is an appellate court opinion regarding a defamation lawsuit filed by Mindi Larue and Jeremy Tucker against David and Sarah Brown. The court affirmed the jury's verdict finding the Browns liable for defamation. It held that while the initial defamatory statements were published over a year before the lawsuit, later comments and responses by the Browns on the website constituted republication of the statements, making the lawsuit timely under the one-year statute of limitations.
Darren Chaker http://darrenchaker,us/ notes, “[T]he First Amendment does not „belong‟ to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms.” First Nat. Bank. of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 802 (1978) (Burger, C.J., concurring). This federal court ruling found a Florida law preventing disclosure of police home address information to be unconstitutional for several articulated reasons based on the First Amendment. The court found the right to publish police home addresses did not fall within any category of speech the First Amendment allowed to exempt from protection.
Darren Chaker http://darrenchaker,us/ notes, “[T]he First Amendment does not „belong‟ to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms.” First Nat. Bank. of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 802 (1978) (Burger, C.J., concurring). This federal court ruling found a Florida law preventing disclosure of police home address information to be unconstitutional for several articulated reasons based on the First Amendment. The court found the right to publish police home addresses did not fall within any category of speech the First Amendment allowed to exempt from protection.
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsRich Bergeron
This is my quick reply to the ridiculously deficient objection to my sanctions motion filed by Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater. The judge ended up not giving Heater an extension and set the hearing for March 5, 2021.
Motion for Summary Judgment by Kanawha Stone containing the deposition and re...Putnam Reporter
Motion For Summary Judgment with exhibit containing the depositions and resumes of the plaintiffs in the case of :
DOLORES HALBURN and MARK HALBURN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF HURRICANE, WEST VIRGINIA,
a municipal corporation, BEN NEWHOUSE,
individually and in his capacity as City Manager
for the City of Hurricane, CLEVELAND
CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba Cleveland
Construction, Inc. Of Nevada, and KANAWHA
STONE COMPANY, INC.,
Defendants.
Putnam County WV Civil Action No. 07-C-298
This is a trust that Ed is Currently the trustee of. It has been suggested that he still uses it. As you can see his brother Gary was replaced as trustee.
One of the many documents out and coming out that will show how it works. Garbage & Wilk circle the wagons and getting ready to cut Darren Meade adrift.
Laura Rogal, Maria Crimi Speth and Adam Kunz collectively could not defeat Chris Ingle and Logan Elia in their failed attempt to take Complainsboard out of the game. Ripoff Report and Ed Magedson lose.
Colorado Supreme Court Opinions May 18, 2015Colorado Su.docxclarebernice
Colorado Supreme Court Opinions || May 18, 2015
Colorado Supreme Court -- May 18, 2015
2015 CO 31. No. 13SC9. Pena-Rodriguez v. People.
The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado
2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203
2015 CO 31
Supreme Court Case No. 13SC9
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Case No. 11CA34
Petitioner:
Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez,
v.
Respondent:
The People of the State of Colorado.
Judgment Affirmed
en banc
May 18, 2015
Attorneys for Petitioner:
The Law Office of Jonathan D. Rosen, PC
Jonathan D. Rosen
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondent:
Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General
Majid Yazdi, Assistant Attorney General
Denver, Colorado
CHIEF JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.
JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ dissents, and JUSTICE EID and JUSTICE HOOD join in the dissent.
¶1 This case involves the interplay between two fundamental tenets of the justice system: protecting the
secrecy of jury deliberations and ensuring a defendant’s constitutional right to an impartial jury. After entry of a guilty
verdict, defense counsel obtained juror affidavits suggesting that one of the jurors exhibited racial bias against the
defendant during deliberations. The trial court refused to consider these affidavits, finding that Colorado Rule of
Evidence (“CRE”) 606(b) barred their admission, and the court of appeals affirmed. People v. Pena-Rodriguez, 2012
COA 193, ¶ 3, __ P.3d __. We granted certiorari to consider whether CRE 606(b) applies to such affidavits and, if so,
whether the Sixth Amendment nevertheless requires their admission.1
¶2 We hold that the affidavits regarding the juror’s biased statements fall within the broad sweep of CRE 606(b)
and that they do not satisfy the rule’s “extraneous prejudicial information” exception. We further hold that the trial
court’s application of CRE 606(b) did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
I. Facts and Procedural History
¶3 In May 2007, a man made sexual advances toward two teenage girls in the bathroom of the horse-racing
facility where Petitioner Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez worked. Shortly thereafter, the girls identified Petitioner as the
assailant during a one-on-one showup. The People subsequently charged Petitioner with one count of sexual assault
on a child—victim less than fifteen; one count of unlawful sexual contact—no consent; and two counts of harassment
—strike, shove, or kick. After a preliminary hearing, the court bound over the first count as attempted sexual assault
on a child— victim less than fifteen.2
¶4 At the start of a three-day trial, the jury venire received a written questionnaire, which inquired, “Is there
http://www.cobar.org/opinions/index.cfm?courtid=2
http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinionlist.cfm?casedate=5/18/2015&courtid=2
anything about you that you feel would make it diffic ...
Anyone who has experienced difficulties with either Costco or the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP please respond and/or refer this matter to an attorney that can help me. Why? Costco's recent illegal actions relate to MICHAEL KARR the famous (purse) designer where Costco advertized a purse on Mother's Day Costco never carried. It was aired on Good Morning America. I'M STARTING A CAMPAING TO SUPPORT MICHAEL KARR, TIFFINY'S, SONY AND OTHER TO WITHDRAW THERE SUPPORT FROM COSTCO. I was an employee at Costco and they locked me in a room for and hour and ten minutes while they interogiated without legal and or union representtion. Please support this effort to expose Costco and the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton for what they are.....
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsRich Bergeron
This is my quick reply to the ridiculously deficient objection to my sanctions motion filed by Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater. The judge ended up not giving Heater an extension and set the hearing for March 5, 2021.
Motion for Summary Judgment by Kanawha Stone containing the deposition and re...Putnam Reporter
Motion For Summary Judgment with exhibit containing the depositions and resumes of the plaintiffs in the case of :
DOLORES HALBURN and MARK HALBURN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF HURRICANE, WEST VIRGINIA,
a municipal corporation, BEN NEWHOUSE,
individually and in his capacity as City Manager
for the City of Hurricane, CLEVELAND
CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba Cleveland
Construction, Inc. Of Nevada, and KANAWHA
STONE COMPANY, INC.,
Defendants.
Putnam County WV Civil Action No. 07-C-298
This is a trust that Ed is Currently the trustee of. It has been suggested that he still uses it. As you can see his brother Gary was replaced as trustee.
One of the many documents out and coming out that will show how it works. Garbage & Wilk circle the wagons and getting ready to cut Darren Meade adrift.
Laura Rogal, Maria Crimi Speth and Adam Kunz collectively could not defeat Chris Ingle and Logan Elia in their failed attempt to take Complainsboard out of the game. Ripoff Report and Ed Magedson lose.
Colorado Supreme Court Opinions May 18, 2015Colorado Su.docxclarebernice
Colorado Supreme Court Opinions || May 18, 2015
Colorado Supreme Court -- May 18, 2015
2015 CO 31. No. 13SC9. Pena-Rodriguez v. People.
The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado
2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203
2015 CO 31
Supreme Court Case No. 13SC9
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Case No. 11CA34
Petitioner:
Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez,
v.
Respondent:
The People of the State of Colorado.
Judgment Affirmed
en banc
May 18, 2015
Attorneys for Petitioner:
The Law Office of Jonathan D. Rosen, PC
Jonathan D. Rosen
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondent:
Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General
Majid Yazdi, Assistant Attorney General
Denver, Colorado
CHIEF JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.
JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ dissents, and JUSTICE EID and JUSTICE HOOD join in the dissent.
¶1 This case involves the interplay between two fundamental tenets of the justice system: protecting the
secrecy of jury deliberations and ensuring a defendant’s constitutional right to an impartial jury. After entry of a guilty
verdict, defense counsel obtained juror affidavits suggesting that one of the jurors exhibited racial bias against the
defendant during deliberations. The trial court refused to consider these affidavits, finding that Colorado Rule of
Evidence (“CRE”) 606(b) barred their admission, and the court of appeals affirmed. People v. Pena-Rodriguez, 2012
COA 193, ¶ 3, __ P.3d __. We granted certiorari to consider whether CRE 606(b) applies to such affidavits and, if so,
whether the Sixth Amendment nevertheless requires their admission.1
¶2 We hold that the affidavits regarding the juror’s biased statements fall within the broad sweep of CRE 606(b)
and that they do not satisfy the rule’s “extraneous prejudicial information” exception. We further hold that the trial
court’s application of CRE 606(b) did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
I. Facts and Procedural History
¶3 In May 2007, a man made sexual advances toward two teenage girls in the bathroom of the horse-racing
facility where Petitioner Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez worked. Shortly thereafter, the girls identified Petitioner as the
assailant during a one-on-one showup. The People subsequently charged Petitioner with one count of sexual assault
on a child—victim less than fifteen; one count of unlawful sexual contact—no consent; and two counts of harassment
—strike, shove, or kick. After a preliminary hearing, the court bound over the first count as attempted sexual assault
on a child— victim less than fifteen.2
¶4 At the start of a three-day trial, the jury venire received a written questionnaire, which inquired, “Is there
http://www.cobar.org/opinions/index.cfm?courtid=2
http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinionlist.cfm?casedate=5/18/2015&courtid=2
anything about you that you feel would make it diffic ...
Anyone who has experienced difficulties with either Costco or the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP please respond and/or refer this matter to an attorney that can help me. Why? Costco's recent illegal actions relate to MICHAEL KARR the famous (purse) designer where Costco advertized a purse on Mother's Day Costco never carried. It was aired on Good Morning America. I'M STARTING A CAMPAING TO SUPPORT MICHAEL KARR, TIFFINY'S, SONY AND OTHER TO WITHDRAW THERE SUPPORT FROM COSTCO. I was an employee at Costco and they locked me in a room for and hour and ten minutes while they interogiated without legal and or union representtion. Please support this effort to expose Costco and the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton for what they are.....
An update of key employment law developments in 2014 in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia written by veteran employment lawyer Robert B. Fitzpatrick, principal of Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC.
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
(Revised Summer, 2009)
William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor
In 2008, Dr. Kritsonis was inducted into the William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor, Graduate School, Prairie View A&M University – The Texas A&M University System. He was nominated by doctoral and master’s degree students.
Dr. Kritsonis Lectures at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England
In 2005, Dr. Kritsonis was an Invited Visiting Lecturer at the Oxford Round Table at Oriel College in the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. His lecture was entitled the Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning.
Dr. Kritsonis Recognized as Distinguished Alumnus
In 2004, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis was recognized as the Central Washington University Alumni Association Distinguished Alumnus for the College of Education and Professional Studies. Dr. Kritsonis was nominated by alumni, former students, friends, faculty, and staff. Final selection was made by the Alumni Association Board of Directors. Recipients are CWU graduates of 20 years or more and are recognized for achievement in their professional field and have made a positive contribution to society. For the second consecutive year, U.S. News and World Report placed Central Washington University among the top elite public institutions in the west. CWU was 12th on the list in the 2006 On-Line Education of “America’s Best Colleges.”
Educational Background
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis earned his BA in 1969 from Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington. In 1971, he earned his M.Ed. from Seattle Pacific University. In 1976, he earned his PhD from the University of Iowa. In 1981, he was a Visiting Scholar at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, and in 1987 was a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Doctor of Humane Letters
In June 2008, Dr. Kritsonis received the Doctor of Humane Letters, School of Graduate Studies from Southern Christian University. The ceremony was held at the Hilton Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Professional Experience
Dr. Kritsonis began his career as a teacher. He has served education as a principal, superintendent of schools, director of student teaching and field experiences, invited guest professor, author, consultant, editor-in-chief, and publisher. Dr. Kritsonis has earned tenure as a professor at the highest academic rank at two major universities.
Books – Articles – Lectures - Workshops
Dr. Kritsonis lectures and conducts seminars and workshops on a variety of topics. He is author of more than 600 articles in professional journals and several books. His popular book SCHOOL DISCIPLINE: The Art of Survival is scheduled for its fourth edition. He is the author of the textbook William Kritsonis, PhD on Schooling that is used by many professors at colleges and universities throughout the nation and abroad.
In 2008, Dr. Kritsonis coauthored the textbook A Statistical Journey: Taming of the Skew. The book has been adopted by professors in many colleges and universities throughout the nation. It was published by the Alexis/Austin Group, Murrieta, California.
In 2007, Dr. Kritsonis’ version of the book of Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning (858 pages) was published in the United States of America in cooperation with partial financial support of Visiting Lecturers, Oxford Round Table (2005). The book is the product of a collaborative twenty-four year effort started in 1978 with the late Dr. Philip H. Phenix. Dr. Kritsonis was in continuous communication with Dr. Phenix until his death in 2002.
In 2007, Dr. Kritsonis was the lead author of the textbook Practical Applications of Educational Research and Basic Statistics. The text provides practical content knowledge in research for graduate students at the doctoral and master’s levels.
In 2009, Dr. Kritsonis’ b
Carta de defensa de Mauricio Hernándezpegazohn1978
Defensa de Mauricio Hernández Pineda es enviada a la Corte del Distrito sur de Nueva York para solicitar que sea juzgado por separado en lugar de grupal junto al expresidente Juan Orlando Hernández y Juan Carlos "El Tigre" Bonilla, exjefe de la Policía Nacional el próximo 5 de febrero del 2024 en la ciudad de Nueva York, Estados Unidos.
Failed injunction attempt by Maria Crimi Speth and Adam Kunz of Jaburg & Wilk fail against protest group. No doubt an appeal will be filed but interesting concept that will likely be copied by others.
Also some pretty good information from the courts I intend to use for my own law suit. The word extortion used by the judge.
John F Goodson Relationship to Perter Busnackpaladinpi
This is a story that will show the relationship between John F Goodson, the former Registered agent for Xcentric Ventures, LLC. and Peter Busnack who later became the Registered Agent.
I don't know that I have an opinion about this yet but there are other documents that I will upload that will need to be looked at as well to come to a conclusion.
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptxanvithaav
These slides helps the student of international law to understand what is the nature of international law? and how international law was originated and developed?.
The slides was well structured along with the highlighted points for better understanding .
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
Debt Mapping Camp bebas riba to know how much our debt
Laura Rogal Esq
1. IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
MINDI LARUE and JEREMY TUCKER, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs/Appellees,
v.
DAVID BROWN and SARAH BROWN, husband and wife,
Defendants/Appellants.
No. 1 CA-CV 13-0138
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2009-039582
The Honorable Katherine M. Cooper, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Curry Pearson & Wooten PLLC, Phoenix
By Michael W. Pearson and Kyle B. Sherman
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees
Jaburg & Wilk PC, Phoenix
By Kraig J. Marton and Laura Rogal
Counsel for Defendants/Appellants
OPINION
Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.
FILED 08-19-2014
2. LARUE/TUCKER v. BROWN
Opinion of the Court
2
G O U L D, Judge:
¶1 David and Sarah Brown (“Defendants”) appeal from a
judgment entered against them after a jury found them liable for defaming
Mindi Larue and Jeremy Tucker (“Plaintiffs”) on the Internet. Defendants
argue Plaintiffs’ defamation claim was barred by the statute of limitations
because they filed it more than one year after the defamatory statements
were published. We conclude, however, that Plaintiffs’ defamation action
was not time-barred because Defendants republished the statements less
than one year before Plaintiffs filed their claim. We therefore affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 David Brown and Mindi Larue are former spouses who
divorced in 2006. During the marriage, David and Mindi had two children.
After the divorce, David married Sarah, and Mindi married Jeremy Tucker.
¶3 David and Mindi’s divorce was very contentious, and
resulted in a protracted custody battle over the children. In mid-2007
Defendants initiated a criminal investigation based on allegations Jeremy
had abused one of the children. Defendants also filed an emergency
petition to modify custody and parenting time in the family court. In March
2008, after a hearing on the petition to modify, the family court determined
the allegations of abuse were not proven by a preponderance of the
evidence.
¶4 On November 20 and 22, 2008, Sarah posted two articles on
the website www.ripoffreport.com in which she accused Plaintiffs of sexual
and criminal misconduct. Both articles revealed Plaintiffs’ names, phone
numbers, and address. The November 20 article is entitled, “Mindi Larue
[f]. n. a. Mindi Brown allowed physical abuse of daughter and protected
boyfriend when daughter reported sexual abuse Phoenix Arizona.” The
article stated that “Mindi Larue is a despicable ‘mother,’” and that “her live
in boyfriend, Jeremy Tucker, molested and tortured her 4 year old
daughter.” The article notes that despite the child’s statement to the police
in Wisconsin about the abuse, no charges were filed, and as a result the
child is “once again back in the home of the same man who tortured her”
and sexually abused her. The article lists Jeremy Tucker‘s employer, and
warns the reader that he “could be working at your business or company,
or on nearby building projects. BEWARE.”
¶5 The November 22 article is entitled, “Jeremy Tucker Child
Molestor (sic), also tortures children with Tobasco sauce Phoenix Arizona.”
3. LARUE/TUCKER v. BROWN
Opinion of the Court
3
It alleged that “Jeremy Tucker is a sick sick pedophile who molested and
tortured his girl friends (sic) 4 year old daughter,” “touched her privates,”
and put “tobasco sauce in her panties.” The article stated that charges were
not filed and “this poor child is once again back in the home of the same
man who tortured her with Tabasco sauce and touched her privates.”
¶6 The website provided for interaction between readers and
authors through a report and rebuttal forum which allowed interested
readers to post questions and comments. On February 1, 2009, a reader
posted a comment on the November 22 article entitled, “Where is the Little
Girl’s Biological Father? Where are her grandparents?” The reader then
posed a series of questions, including, “Why hasn’t the little girl said
something to her father,” and “Why hasn’t someone called the child abuse
hotline and reported this?”
¶7 On March 9, 2009, in response to the reader’s comment, Sarah
posted a statement on the November 20 article entitled “Answer to the
WHY’s.” In this article, Sarah noted that the child did report the abuse to
her biological father and the incident was reported to the police. Sarah then
recited additional details of the child’s interview with the police, and
discussed the subsequent investigations conducted by CPS and the Arizona
Ombudsman’s Office. Sarah also stated that Jeremy Tucker “REFUSED
(sic) to take a polygraph test on this matter.” Sarah concluded that the case
had been mishandled by CPS, “and as a result the child is now back in the
home of the same man she was brave enough to speak against.”
¶8 On June 1, 2009, a reader posted a comment on the November
22 article entitled, “What proof do you have?” In this comment, the reader
stated “This is a 100% fake! I know this family very well and I also know
the person who mailed this story to my whole neighborhood…He is just
trying to get back at his ex-wife.”
¶9 Later, on June 5, 2009, Defendants posted a response to a
reader’s comment and a “reply to everyone” on the November 22 article.
In the response Defendants allege, “If you want proof of the fact that this
man refused to take a polygraph test then look up PUBLIC records case
[police report number].” Defendants then state “There is a substantial
amount of proof,” “do your research on child sexual abuse before you pipe
off at the mouth while not having any evidence in front of you…” Then, on
June 7, Defendants posted another comment on the November 22 article
entitled, “reply to everyone.” The reply stated, in part, “I am the biological
father,” and “I read the reply accusing me of seeking retribution. Who ever
(sic) wrote that is a liar.”
4. LARUE/TUCKER v. BROWN
Opinion of the Court
4
¶10 On December 23, 2009, Plaintiffs sued Defendants alleging the
articles published by Defendants on the Internet were defamatory.
¶11 Defendants filed several motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’
complaint on the grounds it was barred by the statute of limitations. The
court denied all of Defendants’ motions, and the case went to trial.
¶12 At the close of the evidence, Defendants asked the court to
instruct the jury on their statute of limitations defense. Defendants sought
language instructing the jury that it could not consider statements “made
before December 23, 2008.” The court did not include the requested
language; instead, the court gave the following instruction:
The statute of limitations for a defamation claim is one (1)
year from the date the alleged defamatory statement was
published to a third person. If a statement is re-published at
a later date, the statute of limitations starts to run from the
date of the republication. The lawsuit in this case was filed
December 23, 2009. A statement is republished if it is
published in a modified form.
¶13 The jury found Defendants liable for defamation. The jury
awarded Plaintiffs $150,000.00 in compensatory damages against both
Defendants and $50,000.00 in punitive damages against Sarah Brown.
DISCUSSION
¶14 The only issue on appeal is whether the court erred in
refusing to grant Defendants relief on their statute of limitations defense.
The parties list a number of standards of review applicable to the various
procedural mechanisms employed by Defendants to raise their statute of
limitations defense. However, all of the issues raised on appeal concern
questions of law. “We review de novo questions of law concerning the
statute of limitations, including ‘when a particular cause of action accrues’”
regardless of the means by which the issue was put before the court. Cook
v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, 232 Ariz. 173, 175, ¶ 10, 303 P.3d 67, 69 (App.
2013).
¶15 Generally, Arizona provides that the statute of limitations for
a defamation action begins to run upon publication of the defamatory
statement. Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc., 168 Ariz. 207, 213, 812
P.2d 1025, 1031 (App. 1990) (citing Lim v. Superior Court in and for Pima Cnty.,
126 Ariz. 481, 482, 616 P.2d 941, 942 (App. 1980)). A plaintiff has one year
after a defamation action accrues to commence and prosecute his claim.
5. LARUE/TUCKER v. BROWN
Opinion of the Court
5
Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 12-541(1) (West 2014); Glaze v. Marcus,
151 Ariz. 538, 540, 729 P.2d 342, 344 (App. 1986). This appeal raises two
issues of first impression in Arizona regarding the accrual date of a cause
of action for defamation: (1) whether the single publication rule applies to
defamatory statements published on the Internet, and (2) what constitutes
a republication of a statement posted on the Internet.
I. Discovery Rule
¶16 Plaintiffs assert that the statute of limitations does not bar
their defamation claim because they did not know who wrote the articles
when they were posted in November 2008. Plaintiffs contend they did not
learn that Defendants posted the articles until sometime later in 2009. Thus,
based on the “discovery rule,” Plaintiffs argue their cause of action did not
accrue until they learned that Defendants authored the articles. See Wyckoff
v. Mogollon Health Ins., 232 Ariz. 588, 591, ¶ 9, 307 P.3d 1015, 1018 (App.
2013) (stating that the “discovery rule” allows a cause of action to accrue
“when the plaintiff knew or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should
have known of the defendants’ conduct,” rather than at the time of the
injury).
¶17 The discovery rule does not apply to this case. The record
shows that Plaintiffs were aware of the articles, and were convinced
Defendants had published them, as early as November 24, 2008. They
cannot now assert the statements, or their author, were concealed from
them. See Phillips v. World Publ’g Co., 822 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1122 (W.D. Wash.
2011) (stating that a plaintiff cannot seek application of the discovery rule
where pleadings indicate his knowledge of the statements).
II. The Single Publication Rule and Republication
¶18 Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ posts in March and June of
2009 were substantive modifications of the original articles posted in
November 2008. As a result, Plaintiffs contend the later posts were
republications that fell outside the single publication rule, thereby starting
the accrual date for their defamation action anew.
A. Single Publication Rule
¶19 The single publication rule controls the point from which a
defamation action accrues and when the statute of limitations begins to run.
Under this rule, a cause of action for defamation arises at the time the
statement is first published; later circulation of the original publication does
not start the statute of limitations anew, nor does it give rise to a new cause
6. LARUE/TUCKER v. BROWN
Opinion of the Court
6
of action. Phillips, 822 F. Supp. 2d at 1122 (holding that under the single
publication rule, any one edition of a book or newspaper or similar
aggregate publication is treated as a single publication and “can give rise to
only one cause of action” (citing Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d
1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006))); Firth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 463, 464-65 (N.Y. 2002)
(stating that under the single publication rule, even though many copies of
a defamatory publication may be widely distributed, the publication is
given the legal effect of one act and gives rise to one cause of action).
¶20 Arizona has enacted the single publication rule by adopting
the Uniform Single Publication Act, which provides:
No person shall have more than one cause of action for
damages for libel, slander, invasion of privacy or any other
tort founded upon a single publication, exhibition or
utterance, such as any one edition of a newspaper, book or
magazine, any one presentation to an audience, any one
broadcast over radio or television or any one exhibition of a
motion picture. Recovery in any action shall include all
damages for any such tort suffered by the plaintiff in all
jurisdictions.
A.R.S. § 12-651(A).
¶21 The single publication rule protects defendants from being
sued separately for each copy of a book or newspaper containing the
allegedly defamatory statement. Oja, 440 F.3d at 1130-32 (“The single
publication rule is designed to protect defendants from harassment through
multiple suits and to reduce the drain of libel cases on judicial resources.”
(citing Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 777 (1984))). It also
prevents the statute of limitations from being reset each time a copy of a
publication is purchased or read. See Traditional Cat Ass’n, Inc. v. Gilbreath,
13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 353, 354-55 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (applying Uniform Single
Publication Act).
¶22 The policy concerns behind the single publication rule apply
with equal or more force to Internet publication.
Given that “[c]ommunications posted on Web sites may be
viewed by thousands, if not millions, over an expansive
geographic area for an indefinite period of time,” allowing
Internet publications to be subject to a multiple publication
rule “would implicate an even greater potential for endless
retriggering of the statute of limitations, multiplicity of suits
7. LARUE/TUCKER v. BROWN
Opinion of the Court
7
and harassment of defendants. Inevitably, there would be a
serious inhibitory effect on the open, pervasive dissemination
of information and ideas over the Internet, which is, of course,
its greatest beneficial promise.”
Oja, 440 F.3d at 1131-32 (internal citations omitted). Recognizing these
policy concerns, federal and state courts have uniformly applied the single
publication rule to the Internet. Pippen v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 734 F.3d
610, 615 (7th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that “[e]very state court that has
considered the question applies the single-publication rule to information
online”); Atkinson v. McLaughlin, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1051-52 & n.3 (D.N.D.
2006) (stating that “other jurisdictions are nearly unanimous in holding that
the single publication rule applies in defamation actions arising out of
[I]nternet publications”).
¶23 We agree with this reasoning from these other jurisdictions
and conclude the single publication rule applies to Internet publications.
Thus, in the case of Internet publications, the statute of limitations begins
to run when the allegedly defamatory material is first made available to the
public by posting it on a website.
¶24 In this case, Defendants published the defamatory statements
on the website on November 20, 2008 and November 22, 2008, which is
more than one year before Plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 23,
2009. As a result, unless Defendants republished the statements after
December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
B. Republication
¶25 Generally, republishing material in a new edition, editing and
republishing it, or placing it in a new form is a separate publication giving
rise to a separate cause of action. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577(A)
cmt. d (1977). Republication “occurs when a defamatory article is placed in
a new form (paperback as opposed to hardcover) or edited in a new form.”
Mitan v. Davis, 243 F. Supp. 2d 719, 722 (W.D. Ky. 2003); see also Gilbreath, 13
Cal. Rptr. 3d at 359 (stating that “a new edition of a book or newspaper
constitutes a new publication”) (emphasis in original). A plaintiff has a new
cause of action when “the defendant edits and retransmits the defamatory
material, or distributes the defamatory material for a second time with the
goal of reaching a new audience.” In re Davis, 347 B.R. 607, 611 (W.D. Ky.
2006) (“Davis II”).
¶26 Because websites are subject to updates or modifications at
any time that can be completely unrelated to their substantive content, the
8. LARUE/TUCKER v. BROWN
Opinion of the Court
8
question of republication in the context of Internet publication focuses on
whether the update or modification affects the substance of the allegedly
defamatory material. Atkinson, 462 F. Supp. 2d at 1054-55; In re Davis, 334
B.R. 874, 883 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2005) (“Davis I”); see also Firth, 98 N.Y.2d at
371 (stating that posting of an unrelated report to a website hosting the
allegedly defamatory statement did not constitute republication). “[M]ere
modifications to the way information is accessed, as opposed to changes in
the nature of the information itself, does not constitute republication.”
Davis I, 334 B.R. at 883; see also Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F. 3d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir.
2012) (holding that “a statement on a website is not republished unless the
statement itself is substantively altered or added to, or the website is
directed to a new audience”).
¶27 Thus, republication does not occur every time a defendant
adds to or revises the content of the website if the changes are unrelated to
the alleged defamatory material. In Churchill v. State, 378 N.J. Super. 471,
876 A.2d 311 (App. Div. 2005), the New Jersey appellate court concluded
that changes to a website hosting a defamatory statement, such as moving
and highlighting the website menu bar, did not constitute republications of
the statement. Churchill, id. at 315, 319. Rather, the court concluded that the
changes were technical, altering the means by which readers accessed the
defamatory report, but not altering the substance or form of the report.
Churchill, id. at 319. Similarly, in Atkinson, the court concluded a website
modification adding information unrelated to the defamatory statement
was not a republication; the “modification did not change the content or
substance of the website” and the update “did not reasonably result in
communicating the alleged defamatory information to a new audience.”
Atkinson, 462 F. Supp. 2d at 1055. And in Firth, the court recognized that
although websites constantly change through the addition of new material,
the changes are not republications unless they relate to and substantively
modify the allegedly defamatory material. Firth, 98 N.Y.2d at 371-72.
¶28 In contrast, the updates to the defamatory material in this case
were not simply technical changes to the website or the addition of new,
unrelated material. The facts before us more closely resemble those of Davis
I. 334 B.R. at 884. In Davis I, the website was created by the defendants to
document the purportedly criminal and unethical activities of the plaintiff.
Id. After the initial posting, the defendants made changes to the website by
“adding ‘Breaking News!’ and ‘Update!’ sections and other sections
containing additional substantive information and links to other websites
containing substantive information.” Id. The court concluded that the
changes to the website were republications because they “relate[d] to the
9. LARUE/TUCKER v. BROWN
Opinion of the Court
9
original allegedly defamatory material” and they “altered both the
substance and the form of the original material.” Id.
¶29 Here, in March and June 2009, Defendants replied to readers’
comments made in response to their original defamatory articles.
Defendants’ “updates and rebuttals” were posted immediately below the
text of the original articles, and the content of Defendants’ replies referred
to and re-alleged the substance of the original articles. Defendants’ later
comments also added to and altered the substance of the original material
by providing additional information in response to a reader’s questions,
and re-urging the truth of the original articles in response to another
reader’s criticism. The Defendants’ comments also altered the form of the
original articles. The comments were displayed directly beneath the
original articles, thereby implying they were supplements to the original
articles. In addition, the submission dates of the new comments reflect the
date the comments were added (March and June 2009), again implying they
were updating the original articles.
¶30 Thus, Defendants republished the defamatory statements
originally posted in November 2008 by replying to readers’ comments in
March and June of 2009. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ cause of action for
defamation was not barred by the statute of limitations.
10. LARUE/TUCKER v. BROWN
Opinion of the Court
10
CONCLUSION
¶31 For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the judgment.
Additionally, because Defendants have not prevailed in this appeal we
decline Defendants’ request that we asses fees against Plaintiffs pursuant to
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and A.R.S. § 12-349.
:gsh