{"id":5304,"date":"2022-08-09T15:40:52","date_gmt":"2022-08-09T15:40:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=5304"},"modified":"2026-02-04T16:10:47","modified_gmt":"2026-02-04T16:10:47","slug":"case-example-smith-v-johnson","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/case-example-smith-v-johnson\/","title":{"rendered":"CASE EXAMPLE SMITH V JOHNSON"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>Lawsuits <\/strong>are the front lines of communications law under a common law system, so it\u2019s important to understand the way a case is treated within the legal system.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong>The way a lawsuit works\u00a0 <\/strong>can be described in this hypothetical case of Smith v Johnson. \u00a0In our hypothetical case, we\u2019ll say that Samantha Smith is a state legislator and a well-known public figure in Virginia.\u00a0\u00a0Jesse Johnson is a web publisher in the Tidewater region. \u00a0Smith says Johnson hurt her reputation when she published untrue allegations about her supposed illegal and immoral conduct.\u00a0 She visits with her lawyer, they draw up a complaint and present it to the court in order to start the process of a lawsuit.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Complaint (initial brief<\/strong> ) \u2014 Plaintiff S. Smith (with the help of her attorney) writes an initial \u00a0brief that lays out the facts, points out the law and precedents, and argues for a million dollar judgement against J. Johnson.<\/li>\n<li>This\u00a0<strong>brief<\/strong>\u00a0 is presented to a local circuit court as \u201cSmith v Johnson.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0(The stand-alone <em><strong>v<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0\u2014 without punctuation \u2014 is used in preference to vs or versus).<\/li>\n<li>A brief has six sections:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Who is suing whom<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 parties to the complaint.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Venue<\/strong> \u00a0\u2013 describes where the suit is filed and that it\u00a0 is being filed in the proper court and location (venue);<\/li>\n<li><strong>Facts of the case\u00a0<\/strong>such as the occupations and addresses of the plaintiff and respondent, \u00a0the publication of a news article by Ms Johnson (the defendant \/ respondent) and the damages allegedly suffered by Ms Smith (the complainant \/ plaintiff).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Legal arguments,<\/strong> including tests or standards for libel (such as the <em>NY Times v Sullivan<\/em> standard), along with other precedents on which the case stands;<\/li>\n<li><strong>Action requested,\u00a0<\/strong>also called Prayer for Relief, which in a civil case is either an award of money and\/or a request that the court order the defendant to do something (by issuing an injunction). In appeals cases the relief requested may be to reverse the lower court verdict or to overturn a law as unconstitutional.<\/li>\n<li><strong>References<\/strong> and cases cited<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>The case is accepted<\/strong> by a state circuit court, sometimes known as a &#8220;superior&#8221; or upper division court.\u00a0 Then Johnson is notified (\u201cserved\u201d with a notice) about the lawsuit. \u00a0 Now Johnson can take a variety of actions.<\/li>\n<li><strong>An Answer<\/strong> or response, is drawn up by respondent (defendant) Johnson.\n<ul>\n<li>The answer may include preliminary motions, for example, \u00a0a<strong>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Summary_judgement\">motion for summary judgement<\/a><\/strong> on the basis of insufficient evidence, or a\u00a0\u00a0<strong><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Demurrer\">demurrer <\/a><\/strong>which may object to the plaintiff&#8217;s reading of the law.<\/li>\n<li>\u00a0Other preliminary motions may include motions to suppress evidence illegally obtained, motions to change the venue (especially in the case where there has been unusual publicity) and motions to reschedule a trial to allow more time to prepare.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Discovery<\/strong>\u00a0of evidence, including witness depositions; There may also be interrogatories, or questions, presented to witnesses of both sides, again, before the trial starts. At this point, the court and both sides should\u00a0know where they stand before an expensive trial begins.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Out of Court Settlements\u00a0<\/strong>are reached in\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/08\/08\/business\/08law.html?_r=0\">80-92%<\/a>\u00a0of lawsuits at this stage, since going into a full blown trial is expensive.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Trial ordered<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 If a trial is requested and ordered, a date is set and all evidence is certified by the court. \u00a0Sometimes groups that are not named in the complaint but who have a stake in the trial may file a \u201cfriend of the court\u201d (amicus) brief.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Voir dire,<\/strong> or jury selection, involves an initial pool of jurors selected from voter registration lists. Each side hopes to include jurors who might be favorably inclined toward their client and exclude those who might be prejudiced.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Trial<\/strong> \u2013 \u00a0Begins with opening statements, calls for witnesses for the\u00a0 plaintiff (prosecution), witnesses for the respondent (defense), closing statements and instructions to the jury.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Evidence is weighed<\/strong>\u00a0by judge or jury using appropriate tests (or standards) to the evidence. \u00a0At the trial court level, the outcome is a jury\u00a0<strong>verdict.\u00a0<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>In a criminal case, the well-known test is\u00a0<strong><em>guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<li>In a civil case, the usual test is the<strong><em>\u00a0preponderance of evidence.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<li>However, in a Constitutional law case involving the First Amendment, claims by plaintiffs may be judged under a variety of special tests.\u00a0 In a censorship case,\u00a0 a \u00a0<strong><em>strict scrutiny standard\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>is used for content-specific issues or an<strong><em> intermediate scrutiny standard<\/em><\/strong><em> is used for content neutral issues.\u00a0 In a libel case,\u00a0 the <strong>Ollman test<\/strong> for fact vs opinion may be used. In an advertising case, the<strong>\u00a0Central Hudson test<\/strong> may be used.<br \/>\n<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Smith wins and Johnson appeals<\/strong>. Now the case is now called <em>Johnson\u00a0v Smith<br \/>\n<\/em><\/li>\n<li><strong>Appeal<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 Either side can appeal a trial court decision to a higher court for a variety of legal reasons. There is a chain of appeals courts in both state and federal systems. A case heard by a state supreme court can be appealed to the US Supreme Court (as in New York Times v Sullivan).\n<ul>\n<li>At the federal appeals court level, usually only one judge presides, but on important cases they may preside \u201c<strong>en banc<\/strong>\u201d or with most or all judges.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>The appeals court reads the briefs, hears the oral arguments, and then issues an\u00a0<strong>opinion.\u00a0<\/strong>In our hypothetical case, Johnson wins and the appeals court decides to <em>remand<\/em>\u00a0the case with instructions to lower court judge.\n<ul>\n<li>The decision could stand as a weak federal district precedent if the Supreme Court doesn\u2019t grant\u00a0<strong><em>certiorari.<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Supreme Court<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 Smith appeals to Supreme Court, which grants\u00a0<em>certiorari.<\/em>\u00a0Case is now\u00a0<strong><em>Smith v Johnson <\/em><\/strong>again<\/li>\n<li>Supreme court decides case on basis of a majority of the nine justices, and the majority picks someone to write the opinion. The minority may also write<em>\u00a0dissent.<\/em><\/li>\n<li><strong>Opinion<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 A court opinion may<strong>\u00a0uphold<\/strong>\u00a0the opinion of a lower court, or\u00a0<strong>reverse\u00a0<\/strong>a decision of a lower court. When the Supreme Court issues an opinion, the majority will issue the opinion, there may also be\u00a0<strong>concurring<\/strong>\u00a0opinions with different takes on the law, or\u00a0<strong>dissenting<\/strong>\u00a0opinions from different court members.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Reverse &amp; remand<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 A reversal of a decision often means that the case is\u00a0<strong>remanded<\/strong>\u00a0to a lower court to re-hear the case and reach\u00a0a new decision based on the upper court\u2019s instructions as expressed in the opinion.<\/li>\n<li>\u00a0The lower court re-hears arguments again and now makes a decision based on Supreme Court guidelines. \u00a0If Smith wins this case, a fine and court costs may be imposed on Johnson.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<h3><span style=\"letter-spacing: 0.025em; color: #444444; font-size: 16px;\">legal terms (REVIEW)\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Certiorari (cert.), &#8212; A writ granted by the US Supreme Court agreeing that they will hear a case. (You may see a note saying &#8220;Cert. granted&#8221; and a date, when looking at the history of Supreme\u00a0 Court case.).<\/li>\n<li>Diversity jurisdiction &#8212; Case where petitioners and respondents are in different states, and the case should be heard in federal court not state court. (Falwell v Flynt, 1984, was a libel suit under Virginia law but it started in federal court in Roanoke because the plaintiff and defendant lived in different states.)<\/li>\n<li>Demurrer&#8211; The legal equivalent of &#8220;so what?&#8221; \u00a0Even if the facts are as stated, the the\u00a0legal context is\u00a0not\u00a0so serious that the case should proceed.<\/li>\n<li>En banc &#8212; More than one judge in an appeals court.<\/li>\n<li>Motion for summary judgement, or\u00a0motion to dismiss\u00a0&#8212;\u00a0A pre-trial motion stating that there is so little evidence that there is no point in going on with a trial.<\/li>\n<li>Opinion &#8212; A court&#8217;s findings in a civil case, as opposed to a (jury) verdict. \u00a0An opinion may \u00a0uphold or reverse a lower court.<\/li>\n<li>Petitioner and respondent, or plaintiff and defendant &#8212; Parties to the case.<\/li>\n<li>Public figure versus private person &#8212; This is important in libel and privacy lawsuits. A public figure who brings a lawsuit has a much higher burden of proof than a private person.\u00a0 The question about how to define a public figure has been answered in cases such as <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.\">Gertz v Welch, 1974.\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Standing_(law)\">Standing<\/a> &#8212; Whether a party has the legal ability to bring a lawsuit. Usually standing is determined by whether the plaintiff is directly or indirectly affected by the defendant&#8217;s actions. Questions of standing were key in the <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/WLBT#Opposition_to_civil_rights\">WLBT television station civil rights case<\/a> before the FCC in the 1960s.<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Scienter\">Scienter<\/a> &#8212; Legal term for knowledge that an act or conduct is wrongful. Scienter is an element in the Sullivan &#8220;actual malice&#8221;\u00a0 standard (&#8220;knowingly publishing a falsehood&#8221;) as well as in non media areas like criminal fraud.<\/li>\n<li>Venue &#8211; Location or jurisdiction of the court where a case is heard. Sometimes attorneys ask for a change of venue in cases with high levels of publicity in the hope that the jury may be less prejudiced by pre-trial publicity.<\/li>\n<li>Verdict &#8212; A jury&#8217;s findings in a civil or criminal trial. (Judges in civil cases don&#8217;t issue verdicts.\u00a0 They issue rulings or opinions)<\/li>\n<li>Voir dire&#8211; Jury selection<\/li>\n<li>With prejudice &#8212; Dismissal of a case accompanied by this statement means that the case may not be refiled.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<hr \/>\n<h3>READING<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>\u00a0Virginia State Court <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.state.va.us\/glossary_of_court_terms.html\">Glossary of Terms<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.nolo.com\/lawcenter\/dictionary\/wordindex.cfm\">Everybody\u2019s Legal Dictionary<\/a><\/li>\n<li>The Law.com <a href=\"http:\/\/dictionary.law.com\/\">dictionary<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/thelawdictionary.org\/\">Black&#8217;s Law Dictionary<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.mtsu.edu\/first-amendment\/encyclopedia\/topic\/2\/general-legal-concepts-and-theories\">Encyclopedia of the First Amendment\u00a0<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lawsuits are the front lines of communications law under a common law system, so it\u2019s important to understand the way a case is treated within the legal system. The way a lawsuit works\u00a0 can be described in this hypothetical case &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/case-example-smith-v-johnson\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-5304","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5304","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5304"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5304\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7227,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5304\/revisions\/7227"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5304"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}