|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Tom Lowell v. Matthew Wright|
|Via Video Case 1|
|Tracy M. McGovern, Alicia Marie Wilson, and Casey S. Murdock on behalf of Artistic Piano and Matthew Wright|
Linda K. Williams on behalf of Tom Lowell
Eugene Volokh on behalf of Amici Curiae
Statement of Issues:
(1) Has the distinction set out in Harley-Davidson v. Markley, 279 Or 361, 372, 568 P2d 1359 (1977) between media and non-media defendants been overruled, in light of this court's adoption in Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706, 369 P3d 1117 (2016) of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' First Amendment analysis?
(2) What evidence is required for a plaintiff to reach a jury on a libel claim in a situation where there is limited evidence about the allegedly defamatory writing or the content of a consumer review of a business on a public forum for consumer-related communication?
(3) Does the identity of the speaker or the existence of an economic motive for the speech affect the analysis of whether defendants' consumer-related communication on a public forum for consumer-related communication is sheltered from a defamation action by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Plaintiff's contingent issue:
(4) What factors should guide an Oregon court's determination of whether an allegedly false, defamatory statement is a matter of public concern, as opposed to one of private concern, in a defamation action between parties alleged to be private within the meaning of First Amendment law?
These summaries of cases are prepared for the benefit of members of the media to assist them in reporting the court's activities to the public. Parties and practitioners should not rely on the summaries, or the statement of issues to be decided in the summaries, as indicating the questions that the Supreme Court will consider. Regarding the questions that the Supreme Court may consider, see Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: