# Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily News

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 29, 2004 · 577 Pa. 598

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735010

## Case

- **Full name:** C. Delores TUCKER and William Tucker, Her Husband, v. PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, Phila. Newspapers, Inc.; Knight-Ridder, Inc.; Sports & Entertainment Litigation Reporter; Andrews Publications, Inc.; Legal Communication, Ltd.; Legal Intelligencer; Meridian Venture Partners, L.P.; Baseline II, Inc.; And the Entertainment Litigation Reporter. Appeal of Phila. Daily News, Phila. Newspapers, Inc.; Knight-Ridder, Inc.; Legal Communications, Ltd.; Legal Intelligencer
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 29, 2004
- **Citations:** 577 Pa. 598; 848 A.2d 113; 32 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1705; 2004 Pa. LEXIS 1193
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Former
- **Cited by:** 123 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/9735010

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that “[a]l-though an article is not made defamatory by being unfair, the Philadelphia Daily News acted in an even handed manner by extensively quoting the attorney for the Tuckers... ”
- finding that "[a]lthough an article is not made defamatory by being unfair, the Philadelphia Daily News acted in an even handed manner by extensively quoting the attorney for the Tuckers..."
- stating that in Pennsylvania, “[i]t is the function of the court to determine whether the challenged publication is capable of defamatory meaning.”
- reasoning that in determining whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning, the Court should view the statement in its context
- holding that plaintiff was required to establish evidence of defendant's state of mind in order to survive preliminary objections

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION
Justice SAYLOR.
I join the majority opinion, except for its determination that a cause of action would be stated upon the filing of an amended complaint alleging some unequivocal communication *636 to Appellant-newspapers that the Tuckers’ loss of spousal consortium claim did not include a claim for loss of sexual relations. Since the Tucker II Complaint was filed as of record and contained a boilerplate claim for loss of consortium, which, by definition encompassed a claim for damage to the Tuckers’ sexual relationship, in my view, knowledge on the part of Appellant-newspapers of some greater demonstrated commitment on the part of the Tuckers to a more restricted damages claim would be necessary to implicate the kind of reckless disregard for the truth essential to a defamation claim in the present circumstances.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735010. Public record. Not legal advice.