Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
549 A.2d 1187, 16 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1077, 131 N.H. 6 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the single publication rule, a forum state may apply its own statute of limitations to a multi-state libel claim for nationwide damages, even when the parties are non-residents and the forum is the only jurisdiction where the claim is not time-barred.
Facts:
- Kathy Keeton, a resident of New York, was the subject of allegedly libelous material in five issues of Hustler Magazine.
- The issues were published between September 1975 and July 1976.
- Hustler Magazine, Inc., and its publisher, Larry C. Flynt, were residents of Ohio at the time of publication and later moved to California.
- Hustler distributed between 10,000 and 15,000 copies of its magazine in New Hampshire each month, which constituted approximately one percent of its total circulation.
- Keeton had never been to New Hampshire before the litigation began.
- At the time Keeton filed suit in New Hampshire in 1980, the statutes of limitations for libel in all other potentially relevant jurisdictions (New York, Ohio, California) had expired, while New Hampshire's was six years.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathy Keeton originally filed suit for libel in Ohio in April 1977.
- The Ohio trial court dismissed the libel action in May 1978, finding it was barred by Ohio’s one-year statute of limitations.
- An Ohio intermediate appellate court later affirmed the dismissal of a related claim on limitations grounds in September 1980.
- Keeton filed a new action for libel against Hustler and Flynt in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire in October 1980.
- The district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that personal jurisdiction over the defendants in New Hampshire was proper.
- Following a trial on remand, a jury in the district court awarded Keeton two million dollars in damages.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The First Circuit then certified questions of state law to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a multi-state libel action under the single publication rule, may a court apply the forum state's longer statute of limitations to a claim for nationwide damages when the parties are non-residents and every other jurisdiction would bar the claim as untimely?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
Yes. In a multi-state libel action, New Hampshire law permits the application of its own statute of limitations to a plaintiff's entire claim for nationwide damages under the single publication rule. The court first formally adopts the single publication rule as articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which allows a plaintiff to bring one single lawsuit for all damages resulting from a mass publication. The court then holds that statutes of limitations are procedural rules, and forum states traditionally apply their own procedural laws. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, the court finds no constitutional barrier to applying its own statute of limitations. The court concludes it is prudent to apply its own statute because New Hampshire has a legitimate interest in redressing injuries that occur within its borders, as the defendants distributed a significant number of the libelous magazines in the state. Even if the statute of limitations were treated as substantive, the court's five-factor choice-of-law analysis would still favor applying New Hampshire law, particularly its preference for what it deems the 'sounder rule of law'—a longer limitations period that provides plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity for redress under the single publication rule.
Dissenting - Souter, J.
No. The court should not apply New Hampshire's statute of limitations to this claim. The dissent agrees with adopting the single publication rule but vehemently disagrees with the application of the New Hampshire statute of limitations, characterizing the case as an 'egregious example of forum shopping.' It argues that mechanically labeling a statute of limitations as 'procedural' is a specious distinction, as the rule is dispositive of the right to sue and thus functionally substantive. Applying New Hampshire's five-factor choice-of-law test, the dissent finds that the interests of predictability and interstate comity strongly favor applying the one-year statutes of New York, Ohio, and California—the states with the most significant contacts to the parties and the dispute. New Hampshire's governmental interests are minimal, and its policy is merely to bar claims older than six years, not to affirmatively hear claims time-barred elsewhere. Finally, the dissent argues that the shorter one-year statutes of the other states represent the 'patently better rule' for defamation claims, which can go stale quickly.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the traditional, though increasingly criticized, choice-of-law principle that statutes of limitations are procedural and governed by the law of the forum. It establishes that even minimal contacts, such as one percent of a magazine's circulation, can be sufficient for a state to apply its own procedural law to a nationwide dispute, effectively reviving a claim that is time-barred everywhere else. The case highlights the significant potential for forum shopping created by the single publication rule combined with varying state statutes of limitations. The powerful dissent by Justice Souter articulates the modern, interest-based approach, arguing that functionally substantive rules like statutes of limitation should be subject to a more nuanced conflicts analysis rather than a rigid procedural classification, a view that has gained traction in many jurisdictions.
