The following excerpt is from Den Norske Ameriekalinje Actiesselskabet v. Sum Printing & Publ'g Ass'n, 122 N.E. 463, 226 N.Y. 1 (N.Y. 1919):
The case of Turner v. Hearst, 115 Cal. 394, 402, 47 Pac. 129, seems to hold that evidence of a proper retraction may be given both for the purpose of rebutting the inference of malice and also as evidence tending to prove a decrease of the actual damages which without it plaintiff would have sustained.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.