Connection lost
Server error
CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. v. BUTTS Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court extended the libel rule from New York Times v. Sullivan to “public figures,” not just “public officials.” A magazine was found liable for defaming a football coach due to its reckless reporting, establishing that public figures can win libel suits under a heightened fault standard.
Legal Significance: This case extended First Amendment protections to libel suits brought by “public figures,” requiring them to prove a higher degree of fault than private individuals. It established that grossly irresponsible journalism against a public figure is not constitutionally protected speech.
CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. v. BUTTS Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
This decision consolidated two libel actions. In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, the Saturday Evening Post published an article accusing Wally Butts, the athletic director of the University of Georgia, of conspiring to “fix” a football game. The magazine’s source was an individual who claimed to have overheard the plot via an accidentally crossed telephone line. The Post’s investigation was minimal; it failed to review the source’s notes, interview a key corroborating witness, or consult football experts who could have verified the technical information. Butts, while a well-known figure in college athletics, was not a government employee. In the companion case, Associated Press v. Walker, the AP reported that Edwin Walker, a retired army general and prominent political figure, had personally led a violent crowd against federal marshals during a riot over the integration of the University of Mississippi. The report came from a correspondent on the scene and was considered “hot news” requiring immediate dissemination. Both Butts and Walker sued for libel and won large jury verdicts in state courts, which were appealed on First Amendment grounds.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the First Amendment’s protection for speech and press, as articulated in New York Times v. Sullivan for public officials, extend to defamatory criticism of “public figures,” and if so, what standard of fault must they prove to recover damages?
Yes. The Court extended heightened First Amendment protection to publications concerning “public Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occa
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the First Amendment’s protection for speech and press, as articulated in New York Times v. Sullivan for public officials, extend to defamatory criticism of “public figures,” and if so, what standard of fault must they prove to recover damages?
Conclusion
The case established that non-official "public figures" must overcome a First Amendment-based Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
Legal Rule
A "public figure" who is not a public official may recover damages Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem i
Legal Analysis
The Court produced a fractured set of opinions without a majority rationale. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupida
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- This opinion concurs in Walker but argues that Butts must be