Lafky v. Albert

Decided December 30, 1913

Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1913-12-30

Libel and Slander — Actions—Pleading—Complaint. Where the language alleged in a complaint for libel is not libelous per se, and there is no innuendo, a demurrer is properly sustained. [As to what words are libelous per se, see note in 116 Am. St. Hep. 802.]

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1926

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1913-12-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice McBride.

¶2This is an action for libel. The defendant demurred on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. We have examined the record, and are of the opinion that the language used is not libelous per se; and, there being no innuendo, the demurrer was properly sustained. As no good purpose would be served by perpetuating in the Oregon Reports the article over which the action arose, we omit it from the opinion.

¶3The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Ramsey concur.