## Facts

- On March 23, 1963, Curtis Publishing Co. (Curtis), publisher of *The Saturday Evening Post*, ran an article alleging that Wally Butts, the University of Georgia’s athletic director, had rigged a college football game played the prior fall.
- Butts sued Curtis for libel in federal court in Georgia, alleging the article falsely accused him of serious misconduct and damaged his reputation.
- At trial, evidence supported a finding that Curtis published the accusations without a reliable factual basis; the jury could find the publication was made with culpable fault toward Butts.
- The jury returned a verdict for Butts awarding $60,000 in general damages and $3,000,000 in punitive damages.
- The district court denied Curtis’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- On Curtis’s motion for a new trial based on the size of the punitive award, the district court ordered a new trial unless Butts remitted punitive damages above $400,000.
- Butts filed the remittitur, and the district court entered judgment for $460,000 total.
- Curtis later sought relief under Rule 60(b) and was denied, then appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the article’s accusations constituted actionable libel under Georgia law, including libel per se.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of liability and the damages awarded.
3. Whether the punitive damages award (as reduced by remittitur) required reversal or a new trial.
4. Whether Curtis could obtain reversal based on alleged trial and post-trial errors, including the denial of Rule 60(b) relief and any constitutional arguments not properly raised below.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Butts.
- The court upheld the determination that the publication was actionable under Georgia defamation law because it accused Butts of serious misconduct that would naturally harm his reputation and standing.
- The court concluded the trial record supported the jury’s findings on fault and injury and supported an award of general damages.
- The court upheld punitive damages as remitted to $400,000, finding no basis to disturb the district court’s use of remittitur rather than ordering a complete new trial.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged rulings and rejected attempts to obtain relief through Rule 60(b).
- To the extent Curtis relied on constitutional defenses not properly presented in the district court, the court treated them as not preserved for appellate review.

## Legal Principles

- A publication is actionable as libel per se under Georgia law when its plain meaning charges conduct that tends to disgrace the plaintiff or injure the plaintiff in his occupation or public standing; such statements support recovery without proof of special damages.
- A jury may award punitive damages in a defamation action where the defendant’s publication reflects willfulness, malice, or a reckless disregard for the plaintiff’s rights, and the amount is subject to trial-court control through remittitur and new-trial powers.
- Appellate courts generally defer to jury findings supported by substantial evidence and to the trial court’s management of excessive-verdict concerns through conditional new-trial orders and remittitur.
- Arguments, including constitutional defenses, ordinarily must be timely raised in the trial court to be reviewed on appeal; post-judgment motions cannot be used to relitigate matters that were, or could have been, addressed earlier.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a libel judgment against Curtis Publishing after the *Saturday Evening Post* falsely accused Wally Butts of rigging a football game, holding that the statements were actionable under Georgia law, the evidence supported liability and damages, the reduced punitive award stood, and asserted errors—especially arguments not properly raised below—did not warrant reversal.


Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 351 F.2d 702 (1965)