1. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. RIEMERS v. GRAND FORKS HERALD 688 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 2004) Case Brief

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. RIEMERS v. G. FORKS HERALD PURPOSE: This case looks at defamation in terms of a newpaper’s immunity from suit.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. RIEMERS v. G. FORKS HERALD CAUSE OF ACTION: Defamation (Libel―newspaper).

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. RIEMERS v. G. FORKS HERALD FACTS: Lee wrote an article about Riemers in connection with Riemers’ campaign for public office stating (in reference to Riemers’ divorce): “The court said it found that he had beaten his wife and gave false information about his finances.”

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. RIEMERS v. G. FORKS HERALD ISSUE: Whether the trial court was correct in granting the defendants’ summary judgment after finding that the newspaper statement enjoyed a qualified privilege.

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. RIEMERS v. G. FORKS HERALD HOLDINGS: Yes. 1. The alleged defamatory statement enjoyed a qualified privilege. 2. Because Lee and the newspaper enjoy a qualified privilege making them immune from liability, the newspaper’s parent company is also immune.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. RIEMERS v. G. FORKS HERALD REASONING: Two steps to determine a qualified privilege are whether the circumstances of the statement make the statement privileged and whether the privilege was abused (privilege is abused if the statement is made with actual malice, if there is reason to believe that the statement is not true). Lee did not make the statement with actual malice, the court in Riemers’ divorce case made findings to support Lee’s statement, and such allegations are relevant to the interests of the voters.