U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1991

John Doe v. John Doe

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided December 13, 1991 · Wisdom, Jolly, Davis

949 F.2d 736; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 29220 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Rhonda M. Benedetto, Lanny R. Zatzkis, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant., Francis A. Olivier, III, John L. Olivier, Sunset, La., for Davis., Malcolm W. Monroe, Joseph L. Spilman, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, La., for Hill.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision. The 4 that cite it most often are listed here.

Scott Miller v. Kshama Sawant (9th Cir. 2021)
Butowsky v. Folkenflik (District Court, E.D. Texas 2019)
Eisemann v. Greene (District Court, S.D. New York 1998)
Sassone v. Elder (La. Ct. App. 1992)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

Before WISDOM, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

We deny the petition for rehearing, except as follows. The Louisiana Press Association, as amicus curiae, has argued that the Louisiana common law definition of actual malice is narrower than the federal definition established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). It thus challenged that part of our opinion in which we defined actual malice as having knowledge that the statements were false or having a reckless disregard for their truth value.

Because we have determined that the fair reporting privilege is a state law privilege and because this case involves a private individual, the Louisiana definition of actual malice controls. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3010, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). Neither of the parties to the case raised this issue and it was not argued before us. We therefore leave it to the district court to define, under Louisiana law, the term “actual malice” as it applies in this case.

In all other respects, the Petition for Rehearing is

DENIED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.