Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. 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: A credit agency falsely reported a company’s bankruptcy. The Court held that the First Amendment does not require a private plaintiff to prove “actual malice” to recover presumed and punitive damages when the defamatory speech involves a matter of purely private concern.
Legal Significance: This case established that the First Amendment’s heightened protections for defamatory speech under Gertz do not apply to speech on matters of purely private concern, allowing states to award presumed and punitive damages upon a lesser showing of fault.
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. 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
Petitioner Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., a credit reporting agency, sent a report to five subscribers falsely stating that respondent Greenmoss Builders, Inc., a construction contractor, had filed for voluntary bankruptcy. The report was confidential and, by contract, could not be disseminated further by the subscribers. The error resulted from a teenage employee of Dun & Bradstreet inadvertently misattributing a bankruptcy petition filed by one of Greenmoss’s former employees to the company itself. Upon learning of the false report from its bank, Greenmoss requested a correction and a list of the subscribers who received the report. Dun & Bradstreet issued a corrective notice but refused to provide the subscriber list. Greenmoss sued for defamation in Vermont state court. The jury returned a verdict for Greenmoss, awarding $50,000 in compensatory or presumed damages and $300,000 in punitive damages, without a jury instruction requiring a finding of “actual malice” as defined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Vermont Supreme Court upheld the verdict, reasoning that the First Amendment protections established in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. did not apply to nonmedia defendants.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the First Amendment require a private-figure plaintiff to prove “actual malice” to recover presumed and punitive damages in a defamation action when the false statements do not involve a matter of public concern?
No. The judgment of the Vermont Supreme Court is affirmed. The plurality 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. Excep
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 require a private-figure plaintiff to prove “actual malice” to recover presumed and punitive damages in a defamation action when the false statements do not involve a matter of public concern?
Conclusion
This decision created a significant exception to the *Gertz* framework, establishing a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim
Legal Rule
In defamation actions brought by private individuals, where the defamatory statements do 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 re
Legal Analysis
Justice Powell, writing for the plurality, applied the balancing test from *Gertz 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. Lor
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The First Amendment does not require private-figure plaintiffs to prove “actual