Terwilliger v. . Wands Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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 man sued for slander after becoming ill from rumors that he was having an affair. The court ruled that emotional distress and resulting physical illness do not qualify as “special damages” required for a slander claim, as the injury must be to reputation.
Legal Significance: Establishes the rule that for slander not actionable per se, special damages must be of a pecuniary or material nature resulting from reputational harm, not merely emotional distress or physical illness suffered by the plaintiff upon hearing the slander.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The defendant, Wands, made statements to several individuals, including a man named Heiper, alleging that the plaintiff, Terwilliger, was having an adulterous affair. The words spoken were not actionable per se. Heiper, an intimate friend of the plaintiff, repeated the defendant’s statements to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also informed of similar rumors circulating from other sources. As a result of hearing these defamatory statements, the plaintiff suffered severe mental distress, became physically ill, and was unable to perform his work. He brought an action for slander against Wands, alleging that his illness and consequent inability to labor constituted the requisite special damages needed to make the claim actionable. The plaintiff did not present evidence of any specific pecuniary loss or proof that any third party altered their behavior toward him in a detrimental way due to the slander.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a plaintiff’s physical illness, mental distress, and inability to work, resulting from hearing defamatory statements not actionable per se, constitute legally sufficient “special damages” to sustain an action for slander?
No. The court held that the plaintiff’s illness and inability to labor 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 ve
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a plaintiff’s physical illness, mental distress, and inability to work, resulting from hearing defamatory statements not actionable per se, constitute legally sufficient “special damages” to sustain an action for slander?
Conclusion
This case established a foundational principle in defamation law, narrowing the scope 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 i
Legal Rule
To sustain an action for slander where the words are not actionable 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 cupidata
Legal Analysis
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment, establishing 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. 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 cons
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The original speaker of a slander is not liable for damages