# Renwick v. News & Observer Publishing Co.

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · July 5, 1983 · 63 N.C. App. 200

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9571875

## Case

- **Full name:** HAYDEN B. RENWICK v. THE NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY, D/B/A THE RALEIGH TIMES; HAYDEN B. RENWICK v. GREENSBORO NEWS COMPANY, D/B/A THE GREENSBORO DAILY NEWS AND RECORD
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 5, 1983
- **Citations:** 63 N.C. App. 200; 304 S.E.2d 593; 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 3021
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wells
- **Judges:** Johnson, Phillips, Wells
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Renwick v. News & Observer Publishing Co., 310 N.C. 312 (1984).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9571875

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that under North Carolina law the “intent and meaning of an alleged defamatory statement must be gathered not only from words singled out as libelous, but from the context in which they appear.”

## Opinion text

Judge Wells
dissenting.
When viewed from its four corners, the publication complained of constitutes an expression of opinion regarding activities and comments of a public figure that, in my opinion, is entitled to protection under the Article I, Sec. 14 of the Constitu *244 tion of North Carolina and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I believe this case to be a fair example of where the public’s interest in uninhibited, robust, and open comment is paramount to an individual’s interest in protecting his reputation or privacy. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 686 (1964); compare Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 789 (1974); and Brown v. Boney, 41 N.C. App. 636 , 255 S.E. 2d 784 , disc. rev. denied, 298 N.C. 294 , 259 S.E. 2d 910 (1979).
For these reasons, I must respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9571875. Public record. Not legal advice.