Denny v. Mertz ( 1982 )

HEFFERNAN, J.

(concurring). Under the facts of this case I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Denny was a private person and, accordingly, is not required to prove malice in order to prevail against the media defendant.

I would, however, apply the same standard — that of New York Times and its progeny — in suits against either a media or nonmedia defendant. Accordingly, I join in the reasoning of Justice Abrahamson’s dissent in that respect.

Hence, Denny as a private person need not, in my judgment, prove malice in respect to his defamation suit against Mertz. I therefore agree with the mandate of the majority.