Is it a question of law for the trial court to determine whether a statement is reasonably susceptible to a defamatory interpretation?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Ibarra v. ChickiP, LLC, B236444 (Cal. App. 2013):
"The question whether a statement is reasonably susceptible to a defamatory interpretation is a question of law for the trial court. Only once the court has determined that a statement is reasonably susceptible to such a defamatory interpretation does it become a question for the trier of fact whether or not it was so understood. [Citations.]" (Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 647.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether defamatory statements can reasonably be interpreted as referring to plaintiffs? (California, United States of America)
How has the court interpreted the opinion of the Court of Appeal in deciding whether a retraction was published as conspicuously as a defamatory statement? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the test for determining whether trial counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged on appeal? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
Can expert testimony be used to assist the jury in determining whether a statement or series of statements implied defamatory facts? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the test for determining whether a statement is a "true threat"? (California, United States of America)
What is the appellate court's role in determining whether a defendant satisfied his burden of producing clear and convincing evidence in the trial court? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
