Ogden v. Association of the United States Army

United States District Court District of Columbia
177 F. Supp. 498 (1959)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The publication of a book, periodical, or newspaper containing defamatory matter gives rise to only one cause of action for libel, which accrues at the time of the original publication, and the statute of limitations runs from that date.

Facts:

The defendant, the Association of the United States Army, published a book titled 'Combat Actions in Korea' pursuant to a contract with the United States.
The book contained passages that the plaintiff claimed were defamatory, criticizing his command of a platoon during an engagement in Korea.
The book was first published and released for sale to the public in November 1955.
Individual copies of the book continued to be sold after its initial 1955 publication.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiff filed a complaint for libel against the defendant in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on June 25, 1959.
The defendant moved for summary judgment.
The defendant argued that the action was barred by the District of Columbia's one-year statute of limitations for libel, as the book was first published in November 1955.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

For the purpose of the statute of limitations in a libel action, does the publication of a book containing defamatory material give rise to a single cause of action that accrues at the time of the initial publication, or does each individual sale of the book constitute a separate publication creating a new cause of action?

Opinions:

Majority - Holtzoff, J.

No. The publication of a book containing defamatory material gives rise to a single cause of action that accrues at the time of the initial publication. The court adopted the modern 'single publication rule' and rejected the traditional common law rule that treated every sale of a libelous publication as a new, distinct cause of action. The court reasoned that the traditional rule is ill-suited for the modern era of mass media, where millions of copies can be distributed. Adhering to the old rule would lead to an unnecessary multiplicity of suits and would effectively nullify the statute of limitations, which is intended to provide repose. The court noted that the overwhelming modern trend in American jurisdictions, including New York, Illinois, and the Uniform Single Publication Act, supports the single publication rule as a more practical and realistic approach. Therefore, the statute of limitations begins to run when the finished product is first released by the publisher for sale to the public.

Analysis:

This decision officially adopts the 'single publication rule' for libel cases in the District of Columbia, aligning the jurisdiction with the modern American majority. The ruling represents a significant shift from strict adherence to traditional common law principles towards a more pragmatic standard that acknowledges the realities of mass production and distribution in the publishing industry. By establishing a single, definitive accrual date for a libel claim, the decision provides certainty for publishers and prevents the threat of endless litigation for a single defamatory work, thereby strengthening the statute of limitations as a statute of repose.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Ogden v. Association of the United States Army (1959)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature