Mathews v. McCown
Mathews v. McCown, 2025 UT 34 (Pearce, A.C.J.)
Civil/Civil Procedure
The Utah Supreme Court held:
- The district court erred when it concluded that Appellees’ statements were not capable of defamatory meaning because a court cannot determine whether a statement is capable of sustaining a defamatory meaning by viewing individual words in isolation; rather, it must carefully examine the context in which the statement was made.
- The district court erred when it considered more than the sufficiency of Appellants’ complaint and dismissed Appellants’ claims against Appellees on the basis that Appellees’ statements were privileged.
- Practice tip: Although questions of privilege are not immune from pretrial motion practice, a defamation plaintiff does not have to anticipate and preemptively plead against an affirmative defense.