Noteworthy cases

From the Spring 2008 issue of The News Media & The Law, page 39.

Swafford v. Memphis Individual Practice Association, Tennessee Court of Appeals, 1998: ruled that since the allegedly defamatory material was posted on a Web site available to a limited audience, the single-publication rule doesn’t apply.

Simon v. Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona Supreme Court, 1999: ruled that the statute of limitations starts to run when an article is published on the newspaper’s Web site, not when the article was published in the print edition.

Firth v. State of New York, New York Appellate Division, 2001: rejected plaintiff’s argument that since an article posted on a Web site is continually available, the statute of limitations continually accrued.

Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co., U.S. District Court in New York, 2000: ruled that the single-publication rule applied to a letter published online.

Mitan v. Davis, Kentucky district court, 2003: followed in the two New York cases’ footsteps and applied the single-publication rule to allegedly defamatory material posted on a non-news organization’s Web site.

The Traditional Cat Association v. Gilbreath, California Court of Appeals, 2004: ruled in almost identical manner as the Mitan court.

McCandliss v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., Georgia Court of Appeals, 2004: ruled that the single-publication rule governs actions for libel alleged on a newspaper’s Web site.

Nationwide Bi-Weekly Administration Inc. v. Belo Corp., The Dallas Morning-News, and Scott Burns, U.S. Court of Appeals in Texas (5th Cir.), 2007: relied upon the Firth v. State rule in favor of applying the single-publication rule to online defamation claims.