Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.

Argued March 21, 1984
Reargued October 3, 1984
Decided June 26, 1985


Full case name:	Dun and Bradtreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.

Citations:	472 U.S. 749; 105 S.Ct. 2939; 86 L.Ed.2d 593; 53 USLW 4866; 11 Media L. Rep. 2417

Prior history:	461 A.2d 414 (Vt. 1983), cert. granted, 464 U.S. 959 (1983).

Holding

A credit reporting agency can be held civilly liable for ordinary and punitive damages for publishing false assertions about the bankruptcy of a business which is not a public figure.

Court membership

Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor

Case opinions

Joined by: Rehnquist, O'Connor
Plurality by: Powell
Concurrence by: Burger, White
Joined by: Burger, White
Dissent by: Brennan
Joined by: Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens

Laws applied

U.S. Const., amend. I

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985) was a Supreme Court case which held that a credit reporting agency could be liable in tort if it carelessly relayed false information that a business had declared bankruptcy when in fact it had not.

[edit] Facts

Dun & Bradstreet, a credit rating agency, sent a report to five subscribers indicating that Greenmoss Builders, a construction contractor, had filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy. The report was false and grossly misrepresented the contractor's financial health. Thereafter, Dun & Bradstreet issued a corrective notice, but the contractor had already been harmed.

[edit] Procedural history

The contractor brought a defamation action in Vermont state court, alleging that the false report had injured its reputation and seeking damages. After trial, the judge submitted the case to the jury without specific instructions as to the level of fault the jury was required to find before awarding damages against Dun & Bradstreet for defamation. The jury returned a verdict against Dun & Bradstreet in the contractor's favor and awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. Dun & Bradstreet, however, moved for a new trial, and the trial court granted the motion. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the grant of the motion, holding that the First Amendment allowed an award of damages against a nonmedia defendant such as Dun & Bradstreet, even without a showing of special fault.