Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (October 2007) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
| Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||
| Argued March 21, 1984 Reargued October 3, 1984 Decided June 26, 1985 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 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, Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. 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.
Contents |
[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 (negligence, actual malice, or strict liability) 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.
[edit] Result
The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Vermont Supreme Court's judgment. The court balanced the state's interest in protecting compensating private individuals for injury to their reputation against the First Amendment right to free speech. The court found that First Amendment interests were less controlling in matters of a purely private concern than matters which are a public interest. The Supreme Court did not overturn Vermont state law allowing awards of presumed and punitive damages absent a showing of "actual malice".
