Burkes v. Stidham
Decision Date | 13 November 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 68560,68560 |
Citation | 668 N.E.2d 982,107 Ohio App.3d 363 |
Parties | BURKES et al., Appellants, v. STIDHAM et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Harold Pollock Co., L.P.A., Harold Pollock and Blake Dickson, Cleveland, for appellants.
Walter & Haverfield and Carl E. Anderson, Cleveland, for appellee Ronald B. Adrine.
Ronald Adrine, Cleveland, for appellees R.J. Stidham et al.
Plaintiffs-appellants Caesar D. Burkes and C.B. Management Company, Inc. ("appellants") appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees R.J. Stidham and Ronald B. Adrine. Appellants' complaint stated claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Appellants assign the following errors for review:
Finding the assignments of error to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
This case had its genesis in the proposed sale of two Cleveland radio stations, WJMO-AM and WJMO-FM, to Zebra Broadcasting Corporation ("Zebra"). Zebra was formed in order to effect the purchase. Zebra's majority shareholders were Orrin Tolliver and Otis Rush, the program director and music director of WZAK-FM, respectively. The minority shareholder was Xenophon Zapis, the owner of WZAK. Funding for the purchase was provided in part by a $250,000 loan from Zapis to Tolliver and Rush.
The proposed sale raised concerns in the Cleveland African-American community. The terms of the loan led to a belief among some that there was a high probability Tolliver and Rush would default, thereby giving Zapis control of the WJMO stations as well as WZAK. The stations are oriented toward African-American listeners and control a large share of that audience. Zapis's common ownership of the radio stations would give him a virtual monopoly over the dissemination of news, community affairs information, and music programming to the African-American community.
A petition objecting to the sale was filed with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and individual leaders of Cleveland's African-American community. Neither the Cleveland chapter of the NAACP nor Burkes was a signatory.
In an effort to resolve the dispute, George Forbes, the President of the Cleveland chapter of the NAACP, asked Ronald Adrine, the First Vice President of the Cleveland NAACP chapter, and Burkes to investigate the objections raised by the petitioners. A meeting was held at Burkes's office between some of the petitioners and the proposed buyers of the radio station. Toward the end of the meeting, Burkes told the buyers, Tolliver and Rush, that if they got into trouble with the loan, they should come to see him before defaulting. Another meeting was scheduled for the parties and the NAACP and representatives.
The day before that meeting was to be held, R.J. Stidham telephoned Adrine. Stidham, an attorney, was assisting Rush and Tolliver in resolving the dispute with the petitioners. Stidham related that he had been informed that Burkes was telephoning the advertising manager of WZAK and offering to make the petition go away in return for stock and a reduced advertising rate for his corporation. Adrine considered the allegations to be serious. He called Pauline Tarver, the Executive Director of Cleveland's NAACP chapter, and repeated to her the information received from Stidham. Adrine also contacted Forbes regarding Burkes's alleged statements.
Tarver contacted Burkes and related the statements attributed to him by Stidham. Burkes denied ever making the statements. WZAK's advertising manager confirmed that Burkes had not made the statements. Tarver informed Adrine and Stidham that Burkes denied making the statements.
The meeting scheduled for the day following Stidham's initial conversation with Adrine never took place. It was cancelled on the advice of David Honig, an attorney representing the NAACP on FCC legal issues. Tarver had contacted Honig. He was concerned that the alleged statements might lead to liability on the part of the NAACP. Honig advised Tarver to send a letter on behalf of the NAACP disavowing any involvement with the alleged statements.
An executive meeting was held not long after. Appellants produced a transcript which they aver is of the executive meeting. According to the transcript, Adrine addressed the issue of the proposed radio station sale. Adrine stated that he wished that Burkes were present and that he did not want to make any allegations he could not back up before hearing Burkes's side of the situation. When pressed regarding the allegations, Adrine stated:
Burkes and his corporation, C.B. Management Company, Inc., filed a complaint against Stidham and Adrine for slander and intentional infliction of mental distress. The claims were based on conversations Stidham had with Adrine and Adrine's repetition of that information to Tarver, Forbes, and at the Executive Committee meeting. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on both claims.
Appellants' first, second, third, and fifth assignments of error will be addressed together as similar issues of law and fact are involved. In the assignments of error, appellants dispute the entry of summary judgment for Adrine on the claim of defamation.
Civ.R. 56(C) provides that summary judgment is proper if the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gibbons v. Shalodi
...., citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) and Burkes v. Stidham , 107 Ohio App.3d 363, 371, 668 N.E.2d 982 (8th Dist.1995). "[T]he dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine’ * * * if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could......
-
Ondo v. City of Cleveland
...suffered by the plaintiff is serious and of a nature that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it.Burkes v. Stidham, 107 Ohio App.3d 363, 668 N.E.2d 982, 989 (1995) (citations omitted), quoted in Rosebrough v. Buckeye Valley High Sch., 690 F.3d 427, 433 (6th Cir.2012). We have held......
-
Kaylor v. Rankin
...suffered by the plaintiff is serious and of a nature that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it. Burkes v. Stidham, 107 Ohio App.3d 363, 375, 668 N.E.2d 982 (1995). Serious emotional distress requires an emotional injury which is both severe and debilitating. Id. (citing Paugh v.......
-
Long ex rel. J.L. v. Insight Commc'ns of Cent. Ohio, LLC
...distress required to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Ohio law. See Burkes v. Stidham, 107 Ohio App.3d 363, 668 N.E.2d 982, 989 (1995).Count V. Plaintiffs argue that it was error to dismiss the breach of contract claim, which alleged that TWC violated the......