Finkel v. Sun Tattler Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1409,76-1409 |
| Parties | Charles A. FINKEL, Appellant, v. SUN TATTLER COMPANY, INC., a Florida Corporation, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Quentin V. Long, Long & Finkel, P. A., Hallandale, for appellant.
Harold B. Wahl, Wahl & Gabel, Jacksonville, and Hugh S. Glickstein, Glickstein, Rubin & Rubinchik, Hollywood, for appellees.
It is undisputed and well settled that the Supreme Court of the United States has established a dual standard in libel and slander cases one standard applicable to public officials or public figures another standard applicable to private individuals. (New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)).
No useful judicial purpose would be served to embark upon a discourse regarding the relative merits of such duality or the privileges resulting therefrom. Suffice it to say, such a distinction exists and we apply the applicable law relating thereto.
Accordingly, based upon our understanding of New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, and its progeny, it appears that the appellant is a public official or public figure by virtue of his former status as city attorney and his current activities relating thereto or emanating therefrom. See also Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 86 S.Ct. 669, 15 L.Ed.2d 597 (1966). Therefore the New York Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" standard is the applicable rule by which to measure accountability of appellee for any alleged libel.
Having so concluded, it does not necessarily follow that a summary judgment on this legal proposition is dispositive of the entire cause. In our opinion there exist genuine issues of material fact with respect to the presence or absence of malice on the part of the appellee which preclude the entry of summary judgment. See Firestone v. Time, 231 So.2d 862 (Fla. 4 DCA 1970) cert. den. 237 So.2d 754 (Fla.1970).
Under such circumstances, any litigant, whether public official or private individual, is entitled to a trial on the merits of his or her claim. Our traditional sense of justice and fair play demands no less, particularly where one's reputation or good name is alleged to have been impugned. The free speech protections of the First Amendment and the right of access to our courts under the Florida and United States Constitutions can be properly recognized,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weingarten v. Block
...or attorneys performing similar duties are "public officials" for the purpose of the New York Times rule (Finkel v. Sun Tattler Co., Inc. (Fla.App.1977) 348 So.2d 51 (former city attorney); Frick v. McEldowney (1971) 29 N.Y.2d 720, 325 N.Y.S.2d 755, 275 N.E.2d 337 (attorney employed by a to......
-
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ane, 79-1463
...for public and private individuals, it neglected to articulate what standard applied to private individuals. Finkel v. Sun Tattler Co., 348 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 135 (Fla.1978). Another district stated that under Gertz, private plaintiffs no longer need prove......
-
Bufalino v. Associated Press
...even those retained part-time or only in connection with specific matters, are public officials. See, e.g., Finkel v. Sun Tattler Co., 348 So.2d 51 (Fla.App.1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 135 (Fla.1978); Frink v. McEldowney, 29 N.Y.2d 720, 325 N.Y.S.2d 755, 275 N.E.2d 337 (1971); Ewald v. R......
-
Wilkinson v. Florida Adult Care Ass'n, Inc., 83-1063
...Newspaper Corp., 293 So.2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (candidate for city commission); (3) to former officeholders: Finkel v. Sun Tattler Co., 348 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 135 (Fla.1978) (former city attorney); Rinaldi v. Viking Penguin, Inc., 101 Misc.2d 928, 422 N......