# Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 30, 1984 · 466 U.S. 485

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429584

## Case

- **Full name:** Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 30, 1984
- **Citations:** 466 U.S. 485; 52 U.S.L.W. 4513; 38 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1421; 10 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1625; 104 S. Ct. 1949; 80 L. Ed. 2d 502; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 73
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by White
- **Judges:** Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Burger, White, Rehnquist, O'Connor
- **Cited by:** 1,811 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429584

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the publisher’s choice of language, “though reflecting a misconception, d[id] not place the speech beyond the outer limits of the First Amendment’s broad protective umbrella” and that as a matter of law “the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence th…
- stating that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) “never forbids such an [independent] examination... indeed [the] seminal decision on the Rule expressly contemplated a review of the entire record, stating that a finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to…
- stating general principle that, in First Amendment cases, appellate courts have "an obligation to 'make an independent examination of the whole record' in order to make sure that 'the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression'" (quoting…
- holding, in a product disparagement case, that where "adoption of the language chosen was `one of a number of possible rational interpretations' of an event `that bristled with ambiguities' and descriptive challenges for the writer," plaintiff could not establish actual malice
- explaining that the New York Times Co. 16 requirement of independent appellate review “reflects a deeply held conviction that 17 judges . . . must exercise such review in order to preserve the precious liberties 18 established and ordained by the Constitution”

## Opinion text

Justice White,
dissenting.
Although I do not believe that the “reckless disregard” component of the New York Times malice standard is a question of historical fact, I agree with Justice Rehnquist that the actual-knowledge component surely is. Here, the District Court found that the defamatory statement was written with actual knowledge of falsity. The Court of Appeals thus erred in basing its disagreement with the District Court on its de novo review of the record. The majority is today equally in error. I would remand to the Court of Appeals so that it may perform its task under the proper standard.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429584. Public record. Not legal advice.