Brady v. Klentzman (Opinion)
Annotate this CaseWade Brady sued LeaAnne Klentzman and the West Fort Bend Star (collectively, the media defendants) for libel and libel per se, arguing that a newspaper article portrayed him as “unruly and intoxicated” when he interacted with a state trooper. The jury found that some statements in Klentzman’s article were defamatory, that some of the statements were not substantially true, and that Klentzman acted with malice. The jury awarded damages against the media defendants for mental anguish and damage to Wade’s reputation and exemplary damages against Klentzman and the Star. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding (1) the jury charge improperly placed the burden of proving truth on the media defendants; (2) to recover exemplary damages, Wade had to show that the media defendants acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth; and (3) legally sufficient evidence existed that Wade suffered actual damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals properly remanded the case for a new trial so the jury could evaluate the evidence under the proper standard.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.