Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JEFFERSON v. CHRONICLE PUB. CO.
Plaintiff sued defendant, a newspaper publisher, for libel. He did not allege that he had suffered special damage, and admittedly could not cure the omission by amendment. The court sustained defendant's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend on the specific ground it was not alleged that a correction had been demanded as required by section 48a of the Civil Code. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment which followed.
Plaintiff contends section 48a of the Civil Code is violative of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The point has been settled contrary to plaintiff's contention. Irrespective of our view as to the constitutionality of section 48a, we are bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in Werner v. Southern Cal., etc., Newspapers, 35 Cal.2d 121, 216 P.2d 825, 13 A.L.R.2d 252. In the Werner case it was held that section 48a is not invalid under either the due process clause or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
As this point was the only one considered by the trial judge, and as it is decisive of the appeal, it is unnecessary to consider other points made by respondent in support of its contention that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Duncan v. Ledig, 90 Cal.App.2d 7, 14, 202 P.2d 107; Estate of White, 69 Cal.App.2d 749, 759, 160 P.2d 204; Carter v. Blenkiron, 46 Cal.App. 425, 429, 189 P. 305.
Affirmed.
VALLÉE, Justice.
SHINN, P. J., and PARKER WOOD, J., concur. Hearing denied; SCHAUER and CARTER, JJ., dissenting. For dissenting opinion of SCHAUER, J., see 241 P.2d 20.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Civ. 18613.
Decided: January 04, 1952
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)