Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

Last updated

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 8, 1983
Decided March 20, 1984
Full case nameKathy Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
Citations465 U.S. 770 ( more )
104 S. Ct. 1473; 79 L. Ed. 2d 790; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 40
Case history
Prior682 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1982); cert. granted, 459 U.S. 1169(1983).
Holding
A state's courts could assert personal jurisdiction over the publisher of a defamatory article, where the publisher circulated the publication in the state where the case was brought, regardless of the plaintiff's home state.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Burger, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O’Connor
ConcurrenceBrennan (in judgment)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could assert personal jurisdiction over the publisher of a national magazine which published an allegedly defamatory article about a resident of another state, and where the magazine had wide circulation in that state. [1]

Contents

Background

Keeton was a case for defamation brought by Kathy Keeton, a New York resident and publisher of Penthouse magazine, against the nationally distributed Hustler magazine.

The plaintiff claimed that she was libeled by material published in magazine since 1975, including a cartoon that falsely suggested she had contracted a sexually transmitted infection from fellow Penthouse publisher (and her later to be husband) Bob Guccione, as well as a nude pictorial spread of a model who was identified as Keeton. [2] Keeton chose to bring the case in New Hampshire, even though the plaintiff was not a resident there, because New Hampshire allowed six years to bring suit under that state's statute of limitations, which is longer than any other state. Also, New Hampshire's "Single Publication Rule" could increase the amount of damages the plaintiff could collect by accounting for publication in all 50 states.

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint, finding that Keeton's contacts with New Hampshire were too attenuated for asserting personal jurisdiction over Hustler. The Court of Appeals also found the application of the "Single Publication Rule" requiring awarding Keeton damages caused in all states should she prevail, unfair since most of Keeton's alleged injuries occurred outside of New Hampshire.

Issue

The issue was whether the federal court had personal jurisdiction if the case was brought in New Hampshire, by a plaintiff from a foreign state against a nationally circulated magazine.

Opinion of the Court

In a majority opinion delivered by Justice Rehnquist on March 20, 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld personal jurisdiction, stating that the plaintiff in a case had never been required to have "minimum contacts" in a state to bring suit in that state and since the magazine did conduct business within the state of New Hampshire. The Court also held that even though most of the harm done to Keeton occurred outside New Hampshire, the same would be true in most libel cases brought anywhere other than plaintiff's state of domicile. [1]

Justice Brennan concurred in the judgment. [1]

Other developments

Keeton was later awarded a $2 million judgment by a New Hampshire jury. [2]

This case was decided at the same time as Calder v. Jones , which held that a state had personal jurisdiction over author or editor of an article published in a magazine widely circulated in the state the case was brought, if the claim brought was that the article was libelous about activities in the state by a resident of state. [3] Like Keeton, Rehnquist authored a unanimous decision there. However, key differences between the cases were that Calder involved a plaintiff suing in her state of residence and she was suing the author and editor involved in the piece in addition to the newspaper itself, while Keeton involved a plaintiff suing only the magazine itself.

See also

Related Research Articles

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intending to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

<i>Hustler</i> (magazine) American pornographic magazine

Hustler is a monthly adult-targeted magazine published by Larry Flynt Publications (LFP) in the United States. Introduced in 1974, it was a step forward from the Hustler Newsletter, originally conceived by founder Larry Flynt as cheap advertising for his strip club businesses at the time. The magazine grew from an uncertain start to a peak circulation of around 3 million in the early 1980s; it has since dropped to approximately 500,000. Hustler was among the first major US-based magazines to feature graphic photos of female genitalia and simulated sex acts, in contrast with relatively modest publications such as Playboy. In the 1990s, Hustler, like several of its competitors, began featuring depictions of sexual penetration and oral sex.

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants taking actions to have their legal case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and thus have attracted plaintiffs to file new cases there, even if there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Minimum contacts</span>

Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. The United States Supreme Court has decided a number of cases that have established and refined the principle that it is unfair for a court to assert jurisdiction over a party unless that party's contacts with the state in which that court sits are such that the party "could reasonably expect to be haled into court" in that state. This jurisdiction must "not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice". A non-resident defendant may have minimum contacts with the forum state if they 1) have direct contact with the state; 2) have a contract with a resident of the state; 3) have placed their product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state; 4) seek to serve residents of the forum state; 5) have satisfied the Calder effects test; or 6) have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state.

BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case limiting punitive damages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a court within a state could assert personal jurisdiction over the author and editor of a national magazine which published an allegedly libelous article about a resident of that state, and where the magazine had wide circulation in that state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kathy Keeton</span> American magazine publisher (1939–1997)

Kathryn "Kathy" Keeton was an American magazine publisher along with her partner, and later husband, Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione.

In US law, false light is a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to protection from publicity that creates an untrue or misleading impression about them. That right is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (1916), was a United States Supreme Court case governing the scope of federal question jurisdiction.

United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a city can pressure private employers to hire city residents, but the same exercise of power to bias private contractors against out-of-state residents may be called into account under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution.

Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991), was a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that the First Amendment freedom of the press does not exempt journalists from generally applicable laws.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving the original jurisdiction of the federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases refers to a growing set of judicial precedents in American courts where personal jurisdiction has been asserted upon defendants based solely on their Internet activities. Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions, and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that an Ohio state court could exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation on the basis of that company's "continuous and systematic" contacts with the state of Ohio. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. was a Philippine mining corporation, owned by American John W. Hausermann, that temporarily stopped its mining operations and relocated its president to Ohio during the World War II Japanese occupation of the Philippines. The Court held that the president's use of his office in Ohio to carry on continuous business activities during this period allowed Ohio to properly assert general jurisdiction over his company.

Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case decided April 21, 1986.

Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case involving issues of privacy in balance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and principles of freedom of speech. The Court held 6–3 that the latter requires that merely negligent intrusions into the former by the media not be civilly actionable. It expanded that principle from its landmark defamation holding in New York Times v. Sullivan.

<i>Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.</i> Case in American intellectual property law

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, is a case in American intellectual property law involving personal jurisdiction in the context of internet contacts.

Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978), decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that foreign states are entitled to sue for treble damages in U.S. courts, and should be recognized as "persons" under the Clayton Act.

Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). In the case, the Court held that departure from responsible reporting and unreasonable reporting conduct alone were not sufficient to award a public figure damages in a libel case. However, the Court also ruled that if reporters wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, which included ignoring obvious sources for their report, plaintiffs could be awarded compensatory damages on the grounds of actual malice.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984).
  2. 1 2 "Hustler Ordered to Pay $2 Million for Libeling Penthouse Executive". Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. August 8, 1986.
  3. Calder v. Jones , 465 U.S. 783 (1984).