dentist engaged in "campaign" against fluoridation
How later courts described this case
- dentist engaged in "campaign" against fluoridation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Weintraub, J.
(dissenting). The majority conclude as a matter of law that the statements complained of are not libelous.
Consideration of this case is complicated by the procedural steps below. Plaintiff moved for judgment as to liability, and I agree the trial court properly refused to grant it. Plaintiff’s further motion to strike the separate defense which asserted that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief raised only the question of the sufficiency of the complaint on its face.
It is unnecessary for present purposes to differentiate the counts against the several defendants.
The statements which trouble me are these:
“Here we have a picture of a family corporation of the selected leader of the all-Republican Board of Freeholders, and one-time chairman of the Park Committee profiting by an action by the Board he directed.
Can Mr. Leers explain how he can condone a profit to his corporation through an action talcen by him while a servant of the County of Bergenf" (Italics added)
These statements are ambiguous, but each could have been understood to mean that plaintiff participated in an action which resulted in profit to himself, to wit, the decision to select his property for condemnation, and if so understood, would be libelous. As I see the issue before us, we are concerned solely with the sufficiency of the complaint and since I believe the complaint on its face is adequate, I would reverse and remand the matter for further proceedings.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Heher, Olipilant, Burling and Jacobs — 5.
For reversal — Justice Weintraub — 1.