Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { ?s ?p The Philadelphia newspaper accused Maurice S. Hepps of being linked to organized crime and capitalizing on that connection to influence state legislature through articles that were published in the Philadelphia newspaper. Hepps is the principal stockholder of a corporation that has a chain of stores selling beer, soft drinks, and snacks. The Philadelphia Inquirer published a series of articles on Hepps being linked to organized crime which used some of those links to influence the State’s governmental processes. Hepps brought a defamation suit into a Pennsylvania state court against Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. and the authors of the articles. The Pennsylvania statute gave The Philadelphia Newspaper Inc. the burden of proof on the question of truth or falsity. The jury ruled in favor of the Philadelphia Newspaper Inc. The case was remanded for a new trial. The United States Supreme Court favored Hepps on Monday, April 21, 1986 and held that the newspaper was obligated to prove its accusations true. In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court decided that libel plaintiffs must shoulder the burden of proving falsity, when the article in question relates to public concern.The newspaper published an article of public concern about a private figure; the private figure cannot recover damages without showing the statements are false. This court case dealt with the issues of the first amendment, libel, and defamation.. }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- Philadelphia_Newspapers_v._Hepps abstract "The Philadelphia newspaper accused Maurice S. Hepps of being linked to organized crime and capitalizing on that connection to influence state legislature through articles that were published in the Philadelphia newspaper. Hepps is the principal stockholder of a corporation that has a chain of stores selling beer, soft drinks, and snacks. The Philadelphia Inquirer published a series of articles on Hepps being linked to organized crime which used some of those links to influence the State’s governmental processes. Hepps brought a defamation suit into a Pennsylvania state court against Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. and the authors of the articles. The Pennsylvania statute gave The Philadelphia Newspaper Inc. the burden of proof on the question of truth or falsity. The jury ruled in favor of the Philadelphia Newspaper Inc. The case was remanded for a new trial. The United States Supreme Court favored Hepps on Monday, April 21, 1986 and held that the newspaper was obligated to prove its accusations true. In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court decided that libel plaintiffs must shoulder the burden of proving falsity, when the article in question relates to public concern.The newspaper published an article of public concern about a private figure; the private figure cannot recover damages without showing the statements are false. This court case dealt with the issues of the first amendment, libel, and defamation.".