Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Van Deusen v. Baldwin

99 Ohio App. 3d 416 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Van Deusen v. Baldwin

8 Citing cases

  1. Hartman v. Kerch

    2023 Ohio 1972 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 6 times

    the innocent meaning adopted." Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 453 N.E.2d 666 (1983); see also Van Deusen v.Baldwin, 99 Ohio App.3d 416, 419, 650 N.E.2d 963 (9th Dist.1994). "'It matters not that the defamatory meaning is the more obvious one.

  2. Mangelluzzi v. Morley

    2015 Ohio 3143 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 24 times
    Permitting plaintiffs' IIED claim to proceed on allegations that defendants engaged in "an on-going harassment scheme" to deter plaintiffs from building a home on a neighboring lot, which included filing more than 100 false complaints against plaintiffs, videotaping plaintiffs in their backyard, and knowingly making false statements to others about plaintiffs

    {¶ 41} The “innocent construction rule” provides: “If allegedly defamatory words are susceptible to two meanings, one defamatory and one innocent, the defamatory meaning should be rejected, and the innocent meaning adopted.” Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 453 N.E.2d 666 (1983) ; see also Van Deusen v. Baldwin, 99 Ohio App.3d 416, 419, 650 N.E.2d 963 (9th Dist.1994). Thus, “[i]f a statement has more than one interpretation, it cannot be defamatory per se.” Murray v. Knight–Ridder, Inc., 7th Dist. Belmont No. 02 BE 45, 2004-Ohio-821, 2004 WL 333250, ¶ 31.

  3. Mann v. Cincinnati Enquirer

    2010 Ohio 3963 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 4 times
    Finding no viable false light claim were article misquoted dancer to say that he knew he was expected to have sex with customers as part of his job because the "gist of the article" did not paint him in a false light.

    Yeager v. Local Union 20 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 453 N.E.2d 666, abrogated on other grounds by Welling v. Weinfeld, 133 Ohio St.3d 464, 2007-Ohio-2451, 866 N.E.2d 1051. See, e.g., Sweitzer v. Outlet Communications, Inc. (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 102, 112-113, 726 N.E.2d 1084; Johnson v. Lakewood Hosp. (Sept. 4, 1997), 8th Dist. Nos. 70943 and 71257; Belinky, supra, at 507; Van Deusen v. Baldwin (1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 416, 419, 650 N.E.2d 963; Elwert v. Pilot Life Ins. Co. (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 529, 540-541, 602 N.E.2d 1219.{¶ 14} Under the innocent-construction rule, "if allegedly defamatory words are susceptible to two meanings, one defamatory and one innocent, the defamatory meaning should be rejected and the innocent meaning adopted."

  4. Reed v. Frank

    C.A. No. 19450 (Ohio Ct. App. Jul. 19, 2000)

    " State ex rel. The V. Cos. v. Marshall (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 469. Furthermore, "[p]ursuant to Civ.R. 61, `[a] final judgment may not be disturbed due to the exclusion of evidence unless a substantial right of a party is affected.'" Van Deusen v. Baldwin (1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 416, 420, quoting State ex rel. Avellone v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 58, 62. "Thus, `[a]n appellate court will reverse the decision of a trial court that extinguishes a party's right to discovery if the trial court's decision is improvident and affects the discovering party's substantial rights.'" Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 578, 592, quoting Rossman v. Rossman (1975), 47 Ohio App.2d 103, 110.

  5. Wampler v. Higgins

    Case No. 2000 CA 5 (Ohio Ct. App. May. 31, 2000)   Cited 4 times
    In Wampler the court reviewed and rejected the contention that the protections of Section 11, Article I were meant solely for members of the media as against all citizens: "Nothing in Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution purports to limit to the press the freedom to speak.

    The "innocent construction rule" provides: "[I]f allegedly defamatory words are susceptible to two meanings, one defamatory and one innocent, the defamatory meaning should be rejected, and the innocent meaning adopted."Yeager v. Local Union 20 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 453 N.E.2d 666, 669; see, also, Van Deusen v. Baldwin (1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 416, 419, 650 N.E.2d 963, 965. Thus, we reject the defamatory interpretation in favor of the innocent.

  6. Sweitzer v. Outlet Communications

    133 Ohio App. 3d 102 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 70 times
    Collecting Ohio appellate court cases

    Appellate courts in Ohio have construed Yeager v. Local Union 20 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369, as adopting the innocent construction rule. See, e.g., Van Deusen v. Baldwin (1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 416, 419; Robb v. Lincoln Publishing (Ohio), Inc. (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 595, 618; and Leal v. Holtvogt (1998), 123 Ohio App.3d 51, 81. This rule provides that, if an utterance is reasonably susceptible to both a defamatory and an innocent meaning, as a matter of law, the innocent meaning is to be adopted.

  7. Leal v. Holtvogt

    123 Ohio App. 3d 51 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 82 times
    Concluding that the sale of a half-interest in a horse is a sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code

    The "innocent construction" rule states that if a statement is "susceptible [of] two meanings, one defamatory and one innocent, the defamatory meaning should be rejected, and the innocent meaning adopted." Yeager v. Local Union 20 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 6 OBR 421, 423, 453 N.E.2d 666, 669; see, also, Van Deusen v. Baldwin (1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 416, 419, 650 N.E.2d 963, 965. Unfortunately, the Leals' briefs do not explain how Mrs. Leal's statements could be interpreted innocently.

  8. Gruenspan v. Seitz

    705 N.E.2d 1255 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 27 times

    Stow v. Coville (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 70, 72, 644 N.E.2d 673, 674-675. If statements are susceptible of two different meanings (one defamatory, the other not defamatory), they fall within the "innocent construction rule" and are not, as a matter of law, defamatory. See Yeager v. Local Union 20 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 6 OBR 421, 423-424, 453 N.E.2d 666, 669-670; Van Deusen v. Baldwin (1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 416, 419, 650 N.E.2d 963, 965. The allegedly defamatory remark by Robinson consisted of Seitz's statement in his letter: