The court found the Defendants negligent for failing to accurately write a series of news stories and specifically concluded that the Defendants committed defamation per se, falsity, libel per se, slander per se and business disparagement. The Court awarded actual and general damages against the defendant in the amount of approximately $120,675.00 plus interest. Legal counsel Eddie Morales represented the Plaintiff and alleged in the petition clearly states that on or about August 17, 2010, the Defendants in this civil case, the Eagle Pass Daily, published an article entitled "Acusan a ex-candidato de trabajar ilegalmente" which translates to mean "Ex-candidate is accused of working illegally." Within the context of the article, the Plaintiff's business was attacked for 'Not working within the established regulations under state law.' Immediately after the story ran, the plaintiff unsuccessfully requested from the Defendants that they retract and/or correct the first article. Rather than complying with the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendants published a second article further disparaging the Plaintiff and his business. The plaintiff sent a second formal notice requesting an apology and for the publisher to simply correct his statements, modify the stories and/or retract them completely. According to legal counsel, not only did the publisher not comply with their request, the articles remain on the site to date. The judgement albeit a hefty one in terms of damages, is an example of the fact that any publication which is given permission to exist in this great nation is held to standards and in this day and age of social media and the World Wide Web, when one calls him/herself a publisher, they need to live up to those standards and not use their publication as a weapon by which to launch attacks on individuals. In this case, the Plaintiff exercised his constitutional right to confront the news publishing entity for its failure to report a story accurately, truthfully and without bias.  Many people first read those news stories and actually assume the information is valid and accurate. This case sets a precedent which may prove to be very costly to those who choose to combine opinion with journalistic integrity.