Final answer:
The Carol Burnett case against the National Enquirer resulted in a win for Burnett with awarded damages, while in the Sharon v. Time, Inc. case, Time magazine secured a verdict in its favor due to lack of evidence of malice. General Westmoreland withdrew his complaint against CBS with no retraction or damages.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer case involved a libel suit filed by Carol Burnett against the National Enquirer for publishing a false report insinuating she was intoxicated and boisterous in a public encounter. Burnett won the case, and the court awarded her compensatory and punitive damages. The remedy was significant as it demonstrated the ability of public figures to triumph in defamation suits if they can prove malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
The Sharon v. Time, Inc. case was a libel suit brought by Israeli General Ariel Sharon against Time Magazine for reporting that he had discussed revenge against Palestinians with Lebanese Phalangists before the Sabra and Shatila massacre. While the jury found the report false, they concluded that there was no evidence of malice on the part of Time magazine, resulting in a verdict in favor of Time.
In the Westmoreland v. CBS case, General William Westmoreland sued CBS for a documentary that suggested he had manipulated intelligence about enemy troop strength during the Vietnam War. The suit ended with Westmoreland withdrawing the complaint during the trial, with no retraction from CBS and no damages awarded.