Vaill v. Oneida Dispatch

3 Citing cases

  1. Almeciga v. Ctr. for Investigative Reporting, Inc.

    121 F. Supp. 3d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Any media entity reusing previously produced content would be forced to take steps to secure consent from all participants in the original production. Cf. Vaill v. Oneida Dispatch Corp., 129 Misc.2d 477, 493 N.Y.S.2d 414, 416 (Sup.Ct.1985) (“With the volume of classified ads printed daily ... a need for prepublication telephone authentication—surely involving multiple calls to make contact in at least some instances—would impose an unreasonable burden.”).

  2. Pittman v. Dow Jones Co., Inc.

    662 F. Supp. 921 (E.D. La. 1987)   Cited 8 times

    All the newspaper needed to do was verify the telephone number, and it did not do so. Not only does Blinick seem patently result-oriented to the facts in question in that case, it has been repudiated by higher New York courts which have refused to impose liability on publishers who failed to verify the accuracy of the content of published information. See Vaill v. Oneida Dispatch Corp., 129 Misc.2d 477, 493 N.Y.S.2d 414 (Sup.Ct. 1985); Pressler v. Dow Jones Company, Inc., 88 A.D.2d 928, 450 N.Y.S.2d 884 (1982). The Court has found no Louisiana cases on point, and the parties have cited none.

  3. Daniel v. Dow Jones Co.

    137 Misc. 2d 94 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1987)   Cited 17 times
    In Daniel, subscription newsletters, such as the Journal, were specifically equated with the on-line news service at issue.

    The potential devastating effects of a holding of liability on the publisher is no different; the potential harm to the free dissemination of news and ideas is the same. Even though a lesser standard protects advertisements (Posadas de Puerto Rico Assocs. v Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328, ___, 106 S Ct 2968, 2976), liability has been denied for negligent publication of mistaken advertisements (Pressler v Dow Jones Co., supra; Suarez v Underwood, 103 Misc.2d 445, affd 84 A.D.2d 787; Vaill v Oneida Dispatch Corp., 129 Misc.2d 477; Libertielli v Hoffman-LaRoche, 7 Media L Rep 1734 [SD N Y 1981]; Demuth Dev. Corp. v Merck Co., 432 F. Supp. 990, supra; Yuhas v Mudge, supra). The only New York case to the contrary, Blinick v Long Is. Daily News Press Publ. Co. ( 67 Misc.2d 254), does not correctly follow the cases finding liability for negligent misstatements, incorrectly evaluates the public policies requiring a free press to publish thousands of advertisements daily, and has been "reject[ed]" in this State and elsewhere (Vaill v Oneida Dispatch Corp., supra, at 480; Pittman v Dow Jones Co., supra).