# The New Announcement by Ed **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 23, 2002, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473 "2002-05-23T13:18:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![The\_Mermaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a183cd/32.png) [@The\_Mermaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Mermaid)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/121 "2002-05-24T13:55:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RaCha’ar \* > \*\*Subtle. :rolleyes: > > Honestly, if we’re restricting the identities of the posters to being discussed off-board, hints like this have no place here either. If you’ve agreed not to talk about the identities of the posters in question, _don’t do it_. It’s not particularly cute to hint at identities without naming names. Let it go. \*\* I made no such agreement to refrain from discussing the identies of the parties involved and my comment was meant to jiggle the memories of those who were not sure. I did think it was cute but subtle as a sledgehammer. If you have a problem with it then I would respectfully ask you to bite me. [sub]or are you just pissed cause you didn’t get it[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/122 "2002-05-24T15:21:00Z")
\*\* minty \*\* See, I DO have Dorsaneo’s in front of me 😉 Just had to do a stinking research project on this–although it does seem that the term “defamation” should be taken from common law, but Texas law is clear–The stautory defamation of libel supplants common-law rules. _See Deen v. Snyder_, 57 S.W.2d 338, 340 (Civ. App.–Fort Worth 1933, no writ). Furthermore, A plaintiff need not show common-law malice or prove special damages in order to recover in a libel action as long as statutory requirements are met. _See Guisti v. Galveston Tribune_, 150 S.W. 874, 876-77 (1912). Now I’ve proven my geekiness…and that lawyers can never let someone else get the last word 🙂 BBJ ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/123 "2002-05-24T16:08:42Z")
Ah, but you forgot to _see also_ section 333.03–discussion of libel per se. In 333.03[2][c], we learn that a libel plaintiff “must establish one or more of the statutorily-recognized injuries in order to have a valid cause of action [_see_ Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Tex. 1984)]. However, if the statement in question in a libel case is considered to be defamation ‘per se,’ proof of the statement will satisfy the statutory element of injury to reputation without requiring specific proof of the injurious character of the statement [_see_ Adolph Coors & Co. v. Rodriguez, 780 S.W.2d 477, 488 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1989, den.)].” So a Texas libel plaintiff still needs to show injury–the trick is that it has to be the kind of injury recognized by the libel statute (which is admittedly quite broad). Ain’t the Dorsaneo’s litigation guide great? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/124 "2002-05-24T16:18:22Z")
**BBJ & minty** , are y’all getting your writ history as a part of your reference sources, or is there an easy way to get writ history on-line? ---
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/125 "2002-05-24T16:25:13Z")
Well, I’m basically quoting directly from Dorsaneo’s…so I’m not looking up writ history… I don’t know if there is an easy way Rob, I just hop on Westlaw or look at the green books… Yeah, minty, I LOVE them…thank God the partners don’t realize what’s in them and I get to sound like a genius! ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/126 "2002-05-24T16:39:11Z")
There’s no easy online source of writ history that I know of, Robb. Darn shame, too. For relatively recent cases, I often go to the Texas Supreme Court website and do docket searches on the party names. For older cases, I check the mytexasbar database for subsequent cases citing the one I’m looking at, since they’ll have the writ/petition history. Lexis and Westlaw hate me, 'cause I refuse to run up charges for simple stuff like that. Plus, I’m so totally getting my own copy of the subsequent history table next time they update it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/127 "2002-05-24T18:56:25Z")
Ooh, ooh, I know who it is! Am I in the clique, the cabal, or the coven? [This information can be yours for the low, low price of an attractive photo of yourself sent to yours truly.] Shame on the rest of you for selling out so cheap! Glad to hear the lawsuit threat is over – whew. Did poster A get a yellow card or anything? ---
**Author:** ![mblackwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@mblackwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mblackwell)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/128 "2002-05-24T23:21:56Z")
I aam 90% sure I know who poster A is, but I forget who B is. Somone please email me, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2002, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/129 "2002-05-26T07:44:48Z")
As defamation laws in the US (and in Australia) are legislated at state level, it’s pretty pointless for people to do the “duelling lawsuits” thing. It’s about as relevant to quote Texas law here as it would be to quote Tasmanian law. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2002, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/130 "2002-05-26T14:17:51Z")
(a) No, it’s quite a bit more relevant, since at least it’s defamation law from another American jurisdiction. And on the topic of defamation, state laws in this country are pretty well uniform, despite a few quirks. There would be nothing inherently odd about citing a Texas defamation case to a California court. It would be the height of stupidity to cite a Tasmanian case to a California court. (b) American defamation laws are almost entirely _not_ “legislated,” at the state level or anywhere else. It’s common law, and remarkably uniform common law. The Texas libel statute we were discussing is a very odd exception to that generalization. © No need to talk down to a couple of Texas lawyers talking about Texas quirks. Nobody made any claim that Texas law applied here. We were just hashing out the elements of a Texas libel claim, which shouldn’t be surpising since both of us were apparently working on Texas defamtion lawsuits last week. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473.md?page=6)