Stan Maynard v. Daily Gazette Company, a corporation, dba The Charleston Gazette, No. 21815 (W. Va. July 20, 1994) (Brotherton, C.J.): 191 W.Va. 601, 447 S.E.2d 293
Reversing a $160,000 verdict in a defamation action brought by a professor/student athlete program director after a newspaper charged that he "parlayed [goodwill engendered by his direction of a student/athlete program] into a Marshall basketball scholarship for his son," that he was "part of the corruption of college athletics," and that he was a "culprit[] in this sorry system," the Court held that a statement of opinion which does not contain a provably false assertion of fact is entitled to full constitutional protection.
Dean M. Harris v. Harold Adkins, No. 21537 (W. Va. June 28, 1993) (Miller, J.): 189 W.Va. 465, 432 S.E. 2d 549:
Overruling its holding in Webb v. Fury, 167 W. Va. 434, 282 S.E.2d 28 (1981), regarding absolute privilege under the right to petition clause of the West Virginia Constitution, where city council candidate was sued after making allegedly defamatory comments about a city councilman at a public city council meeting, the Court held that the right to petition under W. Va. Const. art. III, § 16 does not provide an absolute privilege for intentional or reckless falsehoods, but the right is protected by the actual malice standard of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964).
Raymond D. Hinerman v. The Daily Gazette Company, Inc., No. 20489 (W. Va. July 16, 1992) (Neely, J.): 188 W.Va. 157, 423 S.E.2d 560:
Affirming a $375,000 defamation award to an attorney whom the defendant, using a report of an appeal petition filed in the Supreme Court, represented had "seize[d] 100 percent of [his client]'s Workers' Compensation benefits," when, in fact, the attorney only had a lien against 100 percent of his client's workers' compensation benefits, the Court adopted new standards for defamation cases, holding that (1) egregious deviation from generally accepted standards of journalism, animus toward plaintiff, or other "malicious" motives are relevant in ascertaining whether the defendant acted with a subjective realization of falsehood or in reckless disregard for the truth; (2) the standard for determining liability depends on the sophistication of the defendant; (3) publication of defamatory material contained in an public document is privileged if the publication is "accurate and complete" or a "fair abridgement," if the publication is "fair," and if the publication does not depart from the public document in a manner which "convey[s] an erroneous impression to those who hear or read it;" (4) although courts should be vigilant in protecting media defendants against "large punitive damages awards," there can be "no tolerance for media arrogance," and failure to make a "prompt, prominent and abject apology," together with an "offer of reasonable compensation" may justify an award of punitive damages; (5) the term "public official" for purposes of defamation actions include only those persons "who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for the conduct of governmental affairs," and (6) where a person is merely a "public employee," but was not identified in such capacity by the defendant, the lower standard of recovery applies for recovery in a defamation action.
Ronald L. Dixon v. Ogden Newspapers, Inc., a corporation and Donald J. Naegele v. Ogden Newspapers, Inc., a corporation, No. 19425 (W. Va. February 27, 1992) (Brotherton, J.): 187 W.Va. 120, 416 S.E.2d 237:
Reversing a $650,000 defamation award to two police officers who complained that newspaper articles intimated that they had warned the owner of a house of ill repute of an impending raid, the Court held (1) a public official must present clear and convincing evidence of actual malice in order to prevail in a defamation action; (2) evidence that the defendant avoided the truth or omitted known facts in order to distort the truth may constitute actual malice; and, (3) the evidence presented in the instant case was not sufficiently clear and convincing to establish that the defendant had acted with actual malice.
Michael C. Farber v. Walter J. Dale, individually and in his capacity as the Chairman of the West Virginia Health Care Cost Review Authority, No. 19138 (W. Va. April 12, 1990) (Brotherton, J.): 182 W.Va. 784, 392 S.E.2d 224:
In a defamation action brought by an attorney against the Chairman of the Health Care Cost Review Authority who filed an ethics complaint against such attorney charging that the attorney's conduct at a hearing before the Authority, "reminded him of the Gestapo in a Fascist tactics meeting," the Court held that Article VI, § 43 of the West Virginia State Bar Constitution grants absolute immunity in actions for libel against complaining witnesses and parties in attorney disciplinary proceedings.