Digital Media Law Project
Published on Digital Media Law Project (http://www.dmlp.org)

Home > Young v. New Haven Advocate

Young v. New Haven Advocate [1]

Submitted by DMLP Staff on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 17:17

Summary

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Date: 

05/12/2000

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Location: 

Virginia

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

N/A

Legal Claims: 

Defamation
The warden of a Virginia prison sued two Connecticut newspapers for libel in a Virginia court, asserting that they published defamatory articles about him on their websites. In his complaint, Young asserted the newspapers implied he was racist and that... read full description
Parties

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

The New Haven Advocate; Gail Thompson; Camille Jackson; Michael Lawlor; Carolyn Nah; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Alvin Penn; The Hartford Courant; Brian Toolan; Amy Pagnozzi; The Connecticut Post; Rick Sawyers; Ken Dixon

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Large Organization
Media Company

Location of Party: 

  • Virginia

Location of Party: 

  • Connecticut

Legal Counsel: 

Robert Stuart Collins - Fleming & Collins, P.C.

Legal Counsel: 

Robert Douglass Lystad – Baker & Hostetler, LLP
Description

The warden of a Virginia prison sued two Connecticut newspapers for libel in a Virginia court, asserting that they published defamatory articles about him on their websites. In his complaint [2], Young asserted the newspapers implied he was racist and that he encouraged guards to abuse inmates. Compl. [2] ¶ 7.

On Oct. 4, 2000, the New Haven Advocate and the Hartford Courant filed motions to dismiss the suit on the grounds that a Virginia court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Connecticut newspapers. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied the motion, stating the court could exercise jurisdiciton under Virginia law because the "defendants' Connecticut-based Internet activities constituted an act leading to an injury to the plaintiff in Virginia."

The newspapers appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the lower court's decision. In its opinion [3], the court said the Connecticut newspapers could not constitutionally be subject to jurisdiction in a Virginia court because "they did not manifest an intent to aim their websites or the posted articles at a Virginia audience."

The United States Supreme Court declined to hear Young's appeal on May 19, 2003.

Related Links: 

  • USA Today: Appeals Court Takes Up Internet Libel Jurisdiction [4]
  • Freedom Forum: Warden Can't Sue for Libel in Home State, Appeals Panel Rules [5]
  • Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions entry [6]
  • The News Media & the Law's case analysis [7]
Details

Web Site(s) Involved: 

NewHavenAdvocate.com [8]

Courant.com [9]

Content Type: 

  • Text

Publication Medium: 

Website

Subject Area: 

  • Defamation
  • Journalism
  • Personal Jurisdiction
Court Information & Documents

Jurisdiction: 

  • Virginia

Source of Law: 

  • United States

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia; US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit

Court Type: 

Federal

Case Number: 

2:00-cv-00086 (W.D.Va.); No. 01-2340 (4th Cir.)

Relevant Documents: 

PDF icon 2002-12-13-Young Opinion.pdf [10]
PDF icon 2000-05-12-Young Complaint.pdf [11]
PDF icon 2002-12-16-Brief of Appellants.pdf [12]
PDF icon 2002-03-04-Reply Brief of Appellants (4th Cir.).pdf [13]
PDF icon 2001-11-13-Brief for Appellee (4th Cir.).pdf [14]
CMLP Information (Private)

Priority: 

1-High

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Westclip

PACER doesn't have the documents.  Some are available on Westlaw at 315 F.3d 256 (click Full History for others)

CMF - 6/2/09

DMLP Logo


Source URL (modified on 08/20/2014 - 11:09pm): http://www.dmlp.org/threats/young-v-new-haven-advocate

Links
[1] http://www.dmlp.org/threats/young-v-new-haven-advocate
[2] http://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2000-05-12-Young%20Complaint.pdf
[3] http://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2002-12-13-Young%20Opinion.pdf
[4] http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/06/04/libel-jurisdiction.htm
[5] http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17366
[6] http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case309.cfm
[7] http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/27-1/lib-interjur.html
[8] http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/
[9] http://www.courant.com/
[10] http://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2002-12-13-Young%20Opinion.pdf
[11] http://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2000-05-12-Young%20Complaint.pdf
[12] http://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2002-12-16-Brief%20of%20Appellants.pdf
[13] http://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2002-03-04-Reply%20Brief%20of%20Appellants%20%284th%20Cir.%29.pdf
[14] http://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2001-11-13-Brief%20for%20Appellee%20%284th%20Cir.%29.pdf