Nevada Libel, Slander And Defamation Legal Questions

The publishing of false facts is the foundation of defamation. An action for defamation requires: (1) a false and defamatory statement; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third person; (3) fault, amounting to at least negligence; and (4) actual or presumed damages. The first element is often the hardest to prove, which is that the statement was a false statement of fact. Truth is a defense to defamation. The second issue is that (except in a few limited cases) you are required to show damages, which means some loss which you have suffered as a result of these lies. If your attorney was the recipient of the email (and presumably knows the falsity of the representation) there likely are no damages.   However you may have a claim against the attorney for unprofessional conduct under the Rules of Professional Conduct. ... Read More

The publishing of false facts is the foundation of defamation. An action for defamation requires: (1) a false and defamatory statement; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third person; (3) fault, amounting to at least negligence; and (4) actual or presumed damages. The first element is often the hardest to prove, which is that the statement was a false statement of fact. Truth is a defense to defamation. The second issue is that (except in a few limited cases) you are required to show damages, which means some loss which you have suffered as a result of these lies.   If your girlfriend's children were taken but you still have custody of your children, you may not have direct damages. You cannot sue for defamation for statements in judicial proceedings.  In Fink v. Oshins,118 Nev. 428 (2002), the Nevada Supreme Court discussed the rule that communications uttered or published in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged.    This absolute privilege is absolute: precluding liability even where the defamatory statements are published with knowledge of their falsity and personal ill will toward the plaintiff.  The defamatory communication need not be strictly relevant to any issue involved in the proposed or pending litigation,  it only need be in some way pertinent to the subject of controversy.   The privilege applies to communications made during actual judicial proceedings as well as communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding.  The scope of the privilege does have limits. When the defamatory communication is made before a judicial proceeding is initiated, it will be cloaked with immunity only if the communication is made in contemplation of initiation of judicial proceedings.  Within this limit, courts apply the absolute privilege liberally, resolving any doubt “in favor of its relevancy or pertinency.” ... Read More

While you have tagged the question as defamation, there is nothing defamatory in a hotel releasing true information.  It appears that you are really seeking information on privacy claims.   The term "invasion of privacy" really encompasses five different types of claims in Nevada: (1) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another; (2) appropriation of the name or likeness of another; (3) unreasonable publicity given to private facts; (4) publicity unreasonably placing another in a false light before the public and (5) invasion of the right of publicity. It is the first one that people usually associate with the concept of invasion of privacy. The claim for "intrusion" requires: (1) an intentional intrusion (physical or otherwise); (2) on the solitude or seclusion of another; (3) that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. You have to show that you have an actual and reasonable expectation of seclusion or solitude in your financial affairs from your wife.  Arguably the monies used (in a community property state such as Nevada) belonged to the community and each member of the community would have an equal right to such information.  Your wife would have been entitled to the information as part of the divorce proceedings anyway and duty of each spouse to truthfully disclose their financial affairs.  Very likely this email violated internal hotel policies but no laws.... Read More

The publishing of false facts about you is the foundation of defamation. An action for defamation requires: (1) a false and defamatory statement; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third person; (3) fault, amounting to at least negligence; and (4) actual or presumed damages. The first element is often the hardest to prove, which is that the statement was a false statement of fact. Truth is a defense to defamation.  The second issue is that (except in a few limited cases) you are required to show damages, which means some loss which you have suffered as a result of these lies.... Read More

An action for defamation requires: (1) a false and defamatory statement; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third person; (3) fault, amounting to at least negligence; and (4) actual or presumed damages. The first element is often the hardest to prove, which is that the statement was a false statement of fact. Truth is a defense to defamation. You would have to prove (a) who said (b) what false statement (C) to whom and (d) how that publication has damaged you. Gossip has many messengers but no mother. Therefore you should determine how you have been damaged by this gossip before proceeding forward.... Read More

Your plight is a common one plaguing the Internet right now, which is the propensity for websites to post arrests and castigate people, only to then offer to stop publishing negative facts about you for a fee (usually around $100). Your assessment that the website operator will simply republish your information on a different site (to extract additional fees) is also common. For your friends who paid the fee, they may have a breach of contract claim based upon paying to have the information removed if it was not actually removed. However the publishing of negative true facts about you is not defamation. An action for defamation requires: (1) a false and defamatory statement; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third person; (3) fault, amounting to at least negligence; and (4) actual or presumed damages. The first element is often the hardest to prove, which is that the statement was a false statement of fact. Truth is a defense to defamation. Therefore if the website stated that you were arrested, based upon your question, this would be a true (albeit embarrassing) fact and would not be defamatory. However if the website posted that you were convicted of the alleged crime, and ultimately you are either exonerated or the charges dropped, this statement would be false and could be actionable. The other claim to consider beyond defamation is False Light. The Nevada Supreme Court has differentiated false light from defamation. "There are cases indicating that the false light invasion of privacy may be committed even when the publication is not defamatory. While a false light claim may be defamatory, it need not be. (citation omitted). The false light privacy action differs from a defamation action in that the injury in privacy actions is mental distress from having been exposed to public view, while the injury in defamation actions is damage to reputation.” PETA v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd., 111 Nev. 615, 623 (1995). Conversely the United States District Court for the District of Nevada has stated that false light requires: (1) at least an implicit false statement of objective fact; (2) actual malice; and (3) mental distress caused by being exposed to public view. Unlike a defamation action, a false light action does not require a showing of injury to reputation. Therefore, in those circumstances where a false statement may cause subjective emotional distress but no injury to reputation, a false light action may permit recovery where a defamation action would not. Flowers v. Carville, 310 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2002).... Read More

To answer your question, yes you can sue the woman who reported you. However you will most likely not win. An action for defamation requires a person to prove four things under Nevada law: (1) a false and defamatory statement; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third person; (3) fault, amounting to at least negligence; and (4) actual or presumed damages. However, if the defamatory communication imputes a “person's lack of fitness for trade, business, or profession,” or tends to injure the plaintiff in his or her business, it is deemed defamation per se and damages are presumed. You may have heard that truth is an absolute defense to defamation. The question then becomes how you would be able to prove that this person was lying about your driving. What motive would this total stranger have to want to publish a false statement about your driving? While intent has been diluted under defamation, a fact finder in determining the credibility is going to weigh what this person's motivation would be to lie about the incident (or lack thereof) versus your self-interest in preserving your job. This is not a strong defamation case.... Read More

An action for defamation requires a person to prove four things under Nevada law: (1) a false and defamatory statement; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third person; (3) fault, amounting to at least negligence; and (4) actual or presumed damages.  You have not indicated that the statements that the school made were false; if the school divulged truthful information, defamation will not lie-- no matter how malicious you believe the publication to have been.  In fact you note that the school was offended by you publishing statements about the school but that you believe that you should be protected because everything you stated was true. Is it a violation of civil rights?  No. The claim that you may have lies in certain statutory and administrative protections of private financial information, as well as common law claims for invasion of privacy.   The term "invasion of privacy" really encompasses five different types of claims in the State of Nevada: (1) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another; (2) appropriation of the name or likeness of another; (3) unreasonable publicity given to private facts; (4) publicity unreasonably placing another in a false light before the public and (5) invasion of the right of publicity. It is the third (wrongfully publishing private facts) and fourth (false light) claims that may be implicated in your facts.  One thing to ask however if that each of these claims are going to require you to prove damages arising out of your claim.  You should have an attorney review your facts with you, including whether the claims rise beyond mere embarrassment to an actual actionable claim.  ... Read More

Before answering your question, I would note that you have selected libel and slander as your topic heading. The easiest manner to avoid trouble with the website concept which you propose is of course to avoid defamatory posts on your website. While you state that you want to post positive reviews on your site, chances are that at some time a negative review will appear. Keep your posts truthful, unbiased and purely based upon personal and verifiable experience. Be careful of business disparagement. Business disparagement occurs when a person makes: (1) a false and disparaging statement,(2) an unprivileged publication of the statement, (3) malice, and (4) special damages proximately caused by the statement.  This differs from traditional defamation per se in that business disparagement requires (a) malicious intent and (b) proof of actual monetary loss caused by the statement.The answer to your specific question is always fact specific for what you intend to do but generally the reference to and use of a company name is permissible while use of a logo/trademark is a more nebulous area. The reason is that trademark usage often connotes/implies an affiliation or relationship and can cause customer confusion. It is always best to include a disclaimer that your site is not affiliated with the businesses reviewed to avoid any questions of confusion and to further buttress the independence of your reviews. Since many web sites are advertiser-supported, you will need to decide if and how you wish to disclose any advertising relationship with businesses reviewed.... Read More