Cited by

Before taking any discovery, Houston moved to certify a class on one tort claim—false light, as recognized in Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E (1977) (“Section 652E”).

Newspapers, Inc., (emphasis added).

Exch., 8 TORRES, et al. v. MARICOPA, et al, Decision of the Court (1969) (quoting Restatement (Second) Torts Section 46, Comment (d) (1965), overruled in part on other grounds by Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.

It instead protects “a person’s interest in being let alone.” Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.

¶24 “[A] plaintiff cannot sue for false light invasion of privacy if he or she is a public official and the publication relates to performance of his or her public life or duties.” Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.

A claim for false light invasion of privacy must be dismissed if a plaintiff “is a public official and the publication relates to performance of his or her public life or duties.” Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (“We have specifically held that the right of privacy does not exist “where the plaintiff has become a public character.” (quoting Reed v. Real Detective Publ’g Co., )).

Newspapers, Inc., (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652(E) (1977)).

¶14 To support a claim for defamation, a statement about a private figure on a matter of private concern “must be false” and must bring the subject of the statement “into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule” or impeach the subject’s “honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation.” –04 (1993) (quoting Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., ).

To be defamatory, a statement “must be false” and must bring the subject of the statement “into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule,” or impeach the subject’s “honesty, virtue, or reputation.” Turner, 174 Ariz. at 203–04 (quoting Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., ).

¶15 Under Arizona common law, a defamatory publication by a private figure on matters of private concern “must be false and must bring the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or must impeach [that person]’s honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation.” Turner, 174 Ariz. at 203–04 (quoting Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., ); see also Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (“[W]hen a plaintiff is a private figure and the speech is of private concern, the states are free to retai

-04 (1993); Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 340 (1989).

See, e.g., Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., ("It is difficult to conceive of an area of greater public interest than law enforcement.

See Western Technologies, Inc. v. Sverdrup & Parcel, Inc., -6, -23 (App. 1986) (dismissing the plaintiff’s tortious interference claims because protected speech cannot be “wrongful” as a matter of law); Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (“As in defamation, a public official in a false light action must always show that the defendant published with knowledge of the false innuendo or with reckless disregard of the truth.”).

See Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.

Newspapers, Inc., P.2d 781 (1989).

(publication of private facts); (intrusion upon seclusion); Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (false light).

Newspapers, Inc., P.2d 781 (1989).

“To be defamatory, a publication must be false and must bring the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or must impeach plaintiffs honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation.” -04 , -89 (1993) (quoting Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , ).

procedures for release on bail or otherwise be administered in a nondiseriminatory manner.”), disagreed with on other grounds in Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , 339 n. 1, , 785 n. 1 (1989).

See Rutledge v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , overruled on other grounds by Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.

excessive publication.” 7 Green Acres Trust, 141 Ariz. at 616 , 688 P.2d at 624 ( , , , 1096 *388 (App.1986) (“A conditional privilege is abused and forfeited when a defendant acts with malice in fact.”), disapproved on other-grounds by Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.