Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

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

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDefamationFirst AmendmentAppellate ReviewRule 52(a)clearly erroneousactual maliceclear and convincing evidence

Facts

A published article reviewing a Bose loudspeaker system described the perceived movement of violin sound as occurring "about the room." The District Court read the record to show that the writer, Seligson, had actually perceived the sound as moving "along the wall," not "about the room," rejected as not credible his later effort to equate "about" with "across," and treated the inaccuracy as evidence of actual malice. The Court of Appeals concluded that proof of falsity differed from proof of actual malice and held that the record did not show the constitutionally required clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.

Issue

When a defamation case is governed by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, must an appellate court review a trial court's finding of actual malice only for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), or must it make an independent examination of the record to determine whether actual malice is shown with convincing clarity?

Rule

In a case governed by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the question whether the record establishes actual malice with clear and convincing evidence is a matter of federal constitutional law requiring independent appellate review. Rule 52(a)'s clearly-erroneous standard does not prescribe the standard of review for that constitutional determination, though ordinary historical findings not bearing on actual malice remain subject to Rule 52(a).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A newspaper in Phoenix publishes an article about the mayor, a public official, stating that he "secretly approved" a zoning variance. After a bench trial, the judge finds the statement false and concludes the paper acted with actual malice because the reporter's explanation for the wording seemed evasive.

On appeal in a defamation action governed by the New York Times actual-malice standard, what standard should the appellate court apply to the actual-malice determination?

Explanation. The majority held that whether the record establishes actual malice with clear and convincing evidence is a federal constitutional question requiring independent appellate review. Rule 52(a)'s clearly erroneous standard does not control that constitutional determination, although the review is limited to evidence germane to actual malice and is not full de novo review of the entire case.