Gaylord Entertainment Co. v. Thompson
| Citation | 958 P.2d 128,1998 OK 30 |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | 88935,Nos. 88925,s. 88925 |
| Parties | GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, d/b/a The Oklahoma Publishing Co., The Oklahoma Publishing Company, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Donald D. THOMPSON, Judge of the District Court of Creek County, Twenty-Fourth Judicial District, Respondent, and Jessie Huff Durham, an individual, and Beau Williams, an individual, Real Parties in Interest. WORLD PUBLISHING CO., an Oklahoma corporation, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Donald D. THOMPSON, Judge of the District Court of Creek County, Twenty-Fourth Judicial District, Respondent, and Jessie Huff Durham, an individual, and Beau Williams, an individual, Real Parties in Interest. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
B.J. Rothbaum, Von Russell Creek, Linn & Neville, Oklahoma City, for Petitioners Gaylord Entertainment Company and The Oklahoma Publishing Company in No. 88925.
J. Schaad Titus, Boone, Smith, Davis, Hurst & Dickman, Tulsa, for Petitioner World Publishing Co. in No. 88935.
W.C. Sellers, W.C. "Bill" Sellers, Inc., Sapulpa, and W.C. Sellers, Jr., Bill Sellers, Sapulpa, for Real Parties in Interest in Nos. 88925 and 88935.
¶1 The dispositive issue tendered by the two consolidated original proceedings for a writ of prohibition is whether the district court action against the petitioners, now pending before the respondent judge, is dismissible for want of actionable quality. We draw from three different sources of law 1 to
conclude that (a) when measured by the applicable Conley v. Gibson 2 standard, the plaintiffs (corespondents herein) can muster no set of facts in support of their quest for relief against the petitioners under any legal theory and (b) the writs should issue to arrest further proceedings against the petitioners in the action below.
¶2 This court's original cognizance is invoked to prohibit further proceedings in an action by two lawyers, Jessie Huff Durham and Beau Williams [respondents or plaintiffs], against World Publishing Company, the Gaylord Entertainment Company d/b/a The Oklahoma Publishing Co., and The Oklahoma Publishing Company [collectively called newspapers, petitioners or defendants]. The lawsuit was also pressed against Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, Inc. and five of its leaders [collectively called CALA], entities who are not parties to this original proceeding. 3
Incorporation by Reference of the Plaintiffs' Exhibits
¶4 Although none of the newspaper articles was affixed to the second amended petition below, these instruments were made part of the materials pressed at nisi prius in the petitioners' dismissal quest and stand tendered by them for our consideration here. The parties are hence deemed to have adopted these materials as fit for our analysis in entertaining this cause. 10
RELIEF SOUGHT IN THIS COURT
¶5 In this original proceeding the petitioners seek dismissal of the district court action against them because of its chilling effect on their fundamental-law liberties that are at stake in the trial court process--i.e., the constitutional right of free press and freedom of political speech. 11
¶6 A prerogative writ that may be granted in the exercise of this court's supervisory control over inferior courts, 12 prohibition will lie to arrest unauthorized or excessive use of judicial force. 13 While erroneous denial of a motion to dismiss is not usually an error for which prohibition will lie ¶7 The Availability of the Prerogative Writ Sought Herein Must Be Assayed by the Conley v. Gibson Standard 15
original cognizance will be taken to prohibit the use of unauthorized or excessive judicial force in entertaining nonactionable claims where, as here, valued fundamental-law rights are clearly implicated and their immediate protection from encroachment appears absolutely necessary. 14
¶8 A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action will not be sustained unless it should appear without doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim for relief. 16 Drawing from three legal sources--statutory, common law and constitutional--we hold that, for the reasons to be explained in Parts IV, V and VI infra, no relief may be available on the claim sought to be prosecuted against World Publishing Company, Gaylord Entertainment Company and The Oklahoma Publishing Company. Because the respondents' action against these petitioners is utterly devoid of actionable quality, it cannot withstand the petitioners' quest for dismissal.
THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS
¶9 The petitioners (newspapers) argue that the news articles and editorials 17 in contest are privileged under the statutory (12 O.S.1991 § 1443.1) 18 and common-law fair report privilege. According to petitioners, the initiative process (including the fundraising stage) 19 is authorized and regulated by constitutional 20 and statutory law 21 and hence falls under the § 1443.1 category of "other proceeding authorized by law." They argue the publications are protected by the First Amendment as rhetorical hyperbole in the nature of core political speech. Lastly, petitioners submit that venue in Creek County was mislaid. 22
¶10 The plaintiffs counter that when the newspapers pledged large sums of money to CALA, they became "newsmakers" (rather than reporters) and ceased covering the developments
fairly and accurately. According to the plaintiffs, the petitioners "conspired" to publish false and defamatory statements about the respondents as "trial lawyers" in order to limit their ability to represent their clients against the newspapers and CALA in tort actions. The plaintiffs argue that these actions amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress and injury to their reputation as well as to their property interest in the profession they practice.
¶11 THE PUBLICATIONS IN QUESTION ARE PROTECTED AGAINST CIVIL LIABILITY AS POLITICAL SPEECH
¶12 The Protection of Oklahoma's Free-Speech-and-Press Guarantee
¶13 Restraint upon free speech is prohibited by the terms of Art. 2 § 22, Okl. Const. 23 The State's free-speech-and-press guarantee protects the public by allowing issues to be freely and vigorously discussed. 24 There is a recognized need in a free, self-governing society for dissemination of information of fundamental importance to the people. 25 Without accurate media coverage and discussion of issues that are of governmental interest, it is doubtful that the general public would be able to make informed decisions and participate intelligently in their governance; nor would representatives of government be able to perform their assigned tasks effectively. 26 The protection of this activity is essential for an effective democracy. The fundamental law's free-speech-and-press components are intended to facilitate the functioning of a democratic government by protecting speech that relates to the self-governing process.
¶14 The phrase "free speech" ¶15 The constitutional freedom of expression and discussion, if it is to fulfill its historic function, must embrace all issues about which information is needed (or appropriate) to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their time. 32 Advocacy for or against a proposed law is the purest form of political speech. 33 The state cannot hence burden the free exchange of political ideas about the objective of an initiative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mehdipour v. State Dept. of Corrections
...P.2d 1088; McDaneld v. Lynn Hickey Dodge, Inc., 1999 OK 30, ¶ 7, 979 P.2d 252; Gaylord Entertainment Co. v. Thompson, 1998 OK 30, ¶ 21, 958 P.2d 128 [Recognizing that federal case law provides a logical framework for determining the scope of the protection guaranteed by Oklahoma constitutio......
-
Edmondson v. Pearce
...words" and/or "incitement to imminent lawless activity." See Gaylord Entertainment Co. v. Thompson, 1998 OK 30, ¶ 19 and n. 46, 958 P.2d 128, 141-142 and n. 46 (citations omitted); Price v. State, 1994 OK CR 26, 873 P.2d 1049. Thus, respondents' assertion that part of the Act criminalizes a......
-
Racher v. Westlake Nursing Home Ltd.
...12, § 1443.1, as an affirmative defense that a defendant must assert and prove. Gaylord Entm't Co. v. Thompson, 1998 OK 30, ¶ 29, 958 P.2d 128, 145 (Okla. 1998). Second, in the context of a claim involving tortious interference with contractual relations, the Oklahoma Supreme Court referred......
-
Woods v. Prestwick House Inc.
...So.2d 637 (Fla.App.1999), review denied, 753 So.2d 563 (Fla.2000). 29. Gaylord Entertainment Co. v. Thompson, 1998 OK 30, ¶ 1, 958 P.2d 128 [Simms, J. dissenting.]. See also, Magnusson v. New York Times Co., 2004 OK 53, 98 P.3d 1070 [Multiple broadcasts were considered in determining whethe......