Independent News, Inc. v. Bank of Oregon

Parentheticals

• explaining that, in Wolston v. Reader's Digest Ass'n Inc., 443 U.S. 157, 167, 99 S.Ct. 2701, 61 L.Ed.2d 450 (1979

  Staten v. Steel

• explaining that, in Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n Inc., 443 US 157, 167, 99 S Ct 2701, 61 L Ed 2d 450 (1979), “the Court held that merely because events involving a private individual attract public and media attention does not transform that private individual into a public figure”

  Staten v. Steel

• under qualified privilege of “fair comment and criticism,” a defendant is not liable if publication was made in good faith and without malice

  Neumann v. Liles

• "There is no basis under the Oregon Constitution to provide more protection to certain non-abusive communication based upon the content of the communication."

  Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

• “There is no basis under the Oregon Constitution to provide more protection to certain non-abusive communication based upon the content of the communication.”

  Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

• “Where the qualified privilege of ‘fair comment and criticism’ was applicable, the defendants would not be liable if the publication was made in good faith and without malice.”

  DeLong v. Yu Enterprises, Inc.

• qualified privilege for otherwise defamatory statements if made without malice

  Martin v. Yunker

• “Two recent cases have held that liability applies where the plaintiff is not a ‘public figure’ and the defendant is not a part of the media.” (Citing Wheeler, 286 Or 99; Harley-Davidson v. Markley, 279 Or 361, 568 P2d 1359 (1977).)

  Neumann v. Liles