Nadel

Nadel v. Regents of University of California

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1007·28 Cal. App. 4th 1251·34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 188·94 Daily Journal DAR 13810·22 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2481
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 1994A063549California7,311 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

I. Introduction

In this case we hold that the standard of malice set forth in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 686 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1412], requiring a public official or public figure to prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth in order to establish a news media defendant’s liability for defamation, also applies to defamation actions against government defendants.

David Nadel and Carol Ruth Denney appeal from a defense judgment in their defamation action against The Regents of the University of California and four university employees, arising from the employees’ statements concerning purportedly violent and destructive conduct by Nadel and Denney in opposing the construction of volleyball courts at People’s Park in Berkeley. The court ruled that Nadel and Denney were public figures and failed to present evidence of malice. We affirm.

II. Facts and Procedure

A. History of People’s Park

People’s Park, comprising 2.8 acres of open space, has been a subject of great controversy for more than 30 years. The University of California (University) acquired the property in the early 1960’s, intending to use it…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.