In a defamation action regarding defendant’s statement that plaintiff was involved in “crony companies” associated with former Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where plaintiff’s claim of intentional interference with a business expectancy failed because he did not identify a specific potential transaction that he lost because of defendant’s statements. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) defendant’s statements were not fair or accurate reports of a government document; and 2) a conclusion based on a misstatement of fact was not protected by the fair comment privilege.
Read Jankovic v. Int’l. Crisis Grp., No. 09-7044
Appellate Information
Argued November 16, 2009
Decided January 29, 2010
Judges
Opinion by Judge Williams
Counsel
For Appellant:
William T. O’Brien, Lisa M. Norrett and John W. Lomas Jr., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, Washington, DC
For Appellee:
Amy L. Neuhardt and Jonathan L. Greenblatt, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Washington, DC
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
