Short - Question on Malice

[jci63]

Here are the arguments:

(1) THE APPEALS COURT ERRED BY AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURTS FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT QUALIFIES AS A LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURE.

(2) THE APPEALS COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL TRUTH DOCTRINE TO DEFENDANT/APPELLEE’S STATEMENTS.

3) THE APPEALS COURT ERRED IN ITS DETERMINATION THAT DEFENDANT/APPELLEE’S STATEMENTS WERE A MISUSE OF FORMAL LEGAL TERMINOLOGY.

(4) BOTH THE TRIAL COURT AND THE APPEALS COURT ERRED IN THEIR IMPROPER DETERMINATION OF THE LAW- DNR ORDER 3.100(2) AND PROTECTED WILDLIFE LEGISLATION.

 

[quincy]

Sounds good, jci.

I have not checked the other site to see if your questions were answered, so I will give quick answers here.

The part you bolded above ("and proof of the publication or correction. . .") means that if the letter writers had printed a retraction, they could have used the retraction to defeat any "actual malice" claims. A retraction would have shown good faith.

Retractions are only important if the material is found to be defamatory. They help to limit defamation damages.

Peisner says that punitive damages are generally not recoverable and, where they are, then they are compensatory in nature. Michigan limits punitive damages to the amount necessary to compensate the plaintiff for injury.

MSA stands for Michigan Statutes Annotated and they are commercially published by Lexis. MCLA are Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated and commercially published by West Group (Westlaw). These are merely versions of the Michigan laws, accessible for a fee. You can access the statutes for free through the Michigan government site (Michigan Legislature).

 

[jci63]

From the Court of Appeals Opinion:

"Plaintiff, as the nonmoving party, failed to carry his burden of establishing the existence
of genuine issues of fact concerning whether any of the statements contained in defendants’ letters to the editor were actionable. See Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446, 455; 597 NW2d 28 (1999). Summary disposition was properly granted in favor of defendants."

The question:

Should the Appeals Court affirmed Summary Disposition when their was a material fact in dispute, they affirmed the decision due to "failed to carry his burden of establishing the existence of genuine issues of fact concerning whether any of the statements contained in defendants’ letters to the editor were actionable."

Rule 2.116 Summary Disposition

(C) Grounds. The motion may be based on one or more of these grounds, and must specify the grounds on which it is based:

(10) Except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law.

 

[quincy]

Well, you failed to show the court that any of the statements made in the letters were defamatory per se, so I think the Court of Appeals was probably right to affirm the trial court's decision, although the summary disposition could have been granted on some other issue had it not been that particular one. Both courts seemed to agree that the letters were not defamatory. That sort of blew your defamation case right there.

So, you failed to establish sufficiently that the statements made by the letter writers stated or implied you committed a crime. The defendants, on the other hand, were apparently able to sufficiently show that the statements they made were substantially true (since laymen are not held to the same standards when using technical or legal terminology as experts are), were true opinion (with some rhetorical hyperbole thrown in), and were not intentionally defamatory. Therefore, the letters were not actionable.

Even if there were material facts that you disputed, jci, you apparently failed to prove them to the court.

What you SHOULD have done (and still should do) was show reputational injury (business losses, shunning and ridicule in your community, etc), thereby demonstrating to the court that the statements made by the letter writers were understood by the readers of the letters to be defamatory. You needed to prove that the "common" meaning in your community, when saying that someone killed an albino deer, was to accuse them of a crime. You really needed to demonstrate reputational injury, as the statements made were not defamatory on their face and, without proof of reputational harm resulting from the statements, the courts believed the statements made were understood in their "innocent" sense and did not accuse you of committing a crime.

I read over what you have posted on the other site. Everything seems to be coming together nicely. You are doing one heck of a job here, jci, and you are supporting your arguments well. I am very impressed!

 

[jci63]

Thanks for all your help.

I do have business injury and at least one business owner whom refused to give me work after he read the letters in the newspapers and several cases of ridicule etc. I will pull them up and edit them and post back later.

I have all the elements. I just need to introduce them in the proper form.

I did acquire a Corpus Juris Secundum book on libel, defamation today. 300 pages of research!

Thanks for all your help**************.

 

[quincy]

Ah, CJS! That'll keep you busy for awhile!!

By the way, jci, I did want you to know that the majority of "public figure" libel cases end in summary judgment, so the decisions made in your case are not unusual or surprising. Summary judgments are granted defendants in these cases far more often than they are denied.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (in 1986) that libel suits involving public figures must end in summary judgment before trial unless libel can be shown with convincing clarity. Typically summary judgment will be based on "no clear convincing evidence of actual malice," which is a standard of fault that is exceptionally hard for any plaintiff to meet.