concluding that the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona would adopt a “fair report” privilege consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona would adopt a “fair report” privilege consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611
- holding that the state is not the real party in interest, even assuming that defendants would be reimbursed under Arizona's indemnification statute
- stating that a state's consent to be sued in state court does not necessarily imply consent to be sued in federal court
- given State’s comprehensive provisions for risk management, “no evidence that the Board, acting in its corporate capacity, could satisfy a libel judgment in any way other than by turning to the state of Arizona”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139 (1984)
We reject the statement in the concurring opinion in Ronwin that the language we rely on is dictum.
The opinion
FERGUSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I fully concur in the disposition of the case, but disagree with the application of Eleventh Amendment doctrine. The discussion of immunity of state defendants is unnecessary to the result of the case and is not controlling. When an issue is rendered dictum by a dispositive issue, it should be excluded to avoid misplaced reliance in subsequent cases.