Hughes A. and Marilyn B. Bagley - Page 7

                                                 - 7 -                                                  

            interference with present employment claim; and (3) affirmed the judgment on                
            the tortious interference with future employment claim as to liability, but                 
            reversed and remanded it as to damages on the ground that an award on that                  
            claim could be duplicative of any award on the libel claim.  The reversal of                
            the judgment on the libel claim by the Court of Appeals was on the ground that              
            the District Court erroneously instructed the jury that IBP had the burden of               
            proving that the allegedly libelous statements were true.  The Court of                     
            Appeals in its opinion stated that petitioner must prove that IBP's statements              
            that he "stole" documents and committed "perjury" were, in fact, false and                  
            that he must establish that IBP was at fault in publishing these statements.                
            The Court of Appeals held that to recover punitive damages, petitioner, in                  
            addition to proving falsity, must prove by clear and convincing evidence that               
            IBP's actions in publishing the challenged statements constituted "actual                   
            malice".  With respect to the tortious interference with future employment                  
            claims, the Court of Appeals held that if petitioner failed to recover on his               
            libel claim, the award of damages should be reinstated, but if petitioner                   
            recovered on his libel claim the District Court should then determine to what               
            extent a recovery for tortious interference with future employment would                    
            duplicate his libel recovery.  To the extent of any duplication, the Court of               
            Appeals held that the award of damages on the tortious interference with                    
            future employment claim should not be reinstated.  On remand, the District                  
            Court entered a judgment on the tortious interference with present employment               
            claim in accordance with the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth                 
            Circuit, and on April 23, 1987, IBP paid petitioner $983,281.23 on this claim.              
            This payment was composed of the following amounts:                                         
                  Compensatory damages                 $150,000.00                                      
                  Punitive damages                     500,000.00                                       
                  Costs                                1,933.48                                         
                  Prejudgment interest                 48,575.34                                        
                  Postjudgment interest                 282,772.41                                      
                  Total                                983,281.23                                       






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011