libel per se

libel per se

n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis), or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses. (See: defamation, libel, slander)

References in periodicals archive ?
The father's suit against Scott Weier alleged that this statement claimed he had committed a crime--molestation of his daughter--and was thus libel per se.
Pigott and Hotze for libel, slander, libel per se, slander per se.
All of these statements are false, have subjected the plaintiff to humiliation, scorn and ridicule throughout the world by falsely portraying her as a prostitute or as a woman who trades her body for money and they constitute defamation and libel per se," her attorney, Kenneth Thompson, said in court papers filed Tuesday.
Indeed, it was one year ago that Papua New Guinea tribesmen Hup Daniel Wemp and Henep Isum Mandingo filed a lawsuit against The New Yorker and Pulitzer Prize-winning author and university professor Jared Diamond for libel per se in New York State Supreme Court, April 20, 2009.
in some states a jury in a libel per se case would still have to decide
So, according to William West, my observations regarding Rosie O'Donnell's half-baked behavior on "The View" and her subsequent self-aggrandizement as Bob Barker's possible replacement "arguably constitute libel per se.
Trade libel, libel per se, interference with business opportunities, violation of the California Unfair Competition Act, and violation of the California Unfair Trade Practices Act are the causes of action listed in the complaint.
Dink O'Neal's amateur psychiatric diagnosis of Rosie O'Donnell arguably constitutes libel per se.
The Amended Complaint accuses one or more of the Defendants of libel per se, libel per quod, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, unfair business practices and violation of California Corporations Code as to the two shareholder plaintiffs.
The trial court found that the statements were not constitutionally protected, and constituted libel per se.
The statement that John Gutfreund "was barred from the securities business for life" constitutes libel per se, for which damages are presumed.