# Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily News

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735011

## 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:** Concurring in part by Nigro
- **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/9735011

## 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 AND DISSENTING OPINION
Justice NIGRO.
I join the majority insofar as it reasons and concludes that the published statement that the Tuckers claimed $10 million for damages to their sexual relationship was capable of a defamatory meaning. However, I disagree with the majority’s decision to dismiss the Tuckers’ complaint with leave to re-plead “only in the event that the Tuckers are able to allege, in good faith, that their attorney unequivocally told these specific Appellant-newspapers that the loss of consortium claim did not include a claim for loss of sexual relations.” Op. at 633, 848 A.2d at 135. In my view, at this early stage in the proceedings, before any discovery has even taken place, the majority places too great a burden on the Tuckers to plead specific facts underlying their claim of actual malice and, as a result, prematurely limits the facts on which they will be permitted to rely. As the Superior Court below recognized, “proving actual malice calls into question the state of mind of the one who published the allegedly defamatory statement and, therefore, the issue is not one that readily lends itself to summary disposition.” 757 A.2d 938, 945-46 (Pa.Super.2000). Given that reality, I would simply overrule the preliminary objections regarding actual malice and would give the Tuckers the opportunity in discovery to uncover facts other than those *637 already available to establish the Appellant-newspapers’ reckless disregard for the truth.
Justice CASTILLE joins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735011. Public record. Not legal advice.