Glover v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 78-1835
| Citation | 594 F.2d 715 |
| Decision Date | 23 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1835,78-1835 |
| Parties | 4 Media L. Rep. 2386 Merton GLOVER, Leonard Schultz, Donald Deckert, et al., Appellants, v. NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of R.C.A. Corp., a Delaware Corporation, and Fred Briggs, Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Ronald L. Schultz, Batesland, S. D., filed brief for appellants.
Carleton G. Eldridge, Jr., of Coudert Brothers, Pierre, S. D., Robert C. Riter, Sr., and Robert D. Hofer of Riter, Mayer, Hofer & Riter, New York City, filed brief for appellees.
Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and LARSON, Senior District Judge. *
Forty-six individual plaintiffs (collectively, appellants) appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in this libel action in favor of the defendants-appellees, National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and Fred Briggs. We affirm.
The appellants are alleged in the complaint to be ranchers leasing land on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota or persons closely associated with such ranchers. Appellants complain that the following statements, made by appellee Briggs during the April 6, 1973, NBC Nightly News broadcast, libeled them:
Even though there are no more treaties being made, the Indian is still in a sense losing some of his land . . . mostly through leasing. For example, more than 90% Of the land here on the Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation is leased to non-Indians . . . ranchers, mostly.
The ranchers lease this land at a very low price and then generally, are able to get FHA loans to help them get their herds started. This is something the Indian Can't do. He cannot get a government loan and most banks won't loan to him for the same purpose. (Emphasis in original.)
They also assert the following statements, made by Briggs later in the same broadcast, as libelous Per se :
The Indian lives his squalid (Porcupine S.D.) reservation life wondering if any of this will come to pass. He lives on a subwelfare level dole . . . furnished partly by the collective rent from white ranchers using his land . . . (.) 1
Appellants claim that the quoted statements were maliciously intended to cause millions of television viewers to conclude that the appellant ranchers, because they have leased lands on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation from Indian owners, have taken unjust advantage of the Indians and are responsible for the Indians' subwelfare level of living.
On September 13, 1978, the district court, after considering the depositions and briefs submitted by the parties, granted the appellees' motion for summary judgment. In its unpublished memorandum opinion, the court stated:
(T)here is no possible construction which can be given to these statements which will render any of them libelous per se. The statements are unambiguous and non-defamatory. First of all, none of the statements involves any direct derogatory remarks about any of the (appellants) individually or about any group of ranchers who leased lands from Indian landowners at the time of the April (6th) broadcast.
Furthermore, no pleaded or implied innuendo can transform the statements made during this broadcast from non-defamatory observations into libelous utterances.
The district court further determined that the appellants had failed to plead any special damages, which would be necessary to support a cause of action for libel in the absence of statements which are libelous Per se.
Upon reviewing the record, including the allegedly defamatory statements, we agree with the district court's determination that, as a matter of law, the statements alleged to have libeled the plaintiffs are not libelous Per se.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jensen v. Klecker
...of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled, as a matter of law, to judgment in his favor. Glover v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 594 F.2d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1979). It should not be entered unless the movant has established his right to judgment "with such clarity as to leav......
-
Boatmen's First Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. US, 87-0809-CV-W-1.
...fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.; see, Glover v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 594 F.2d 715, 717 (8th Cir.1979). In passing on a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the facts presented, plus all reasonable inferenc......
-
Citizens Loan and Sav. Co., Matter of, 79-1579
...a jury could disbelieve Charlotte and Richard Weiser's testimony. Summary judgment should be granted sparingly, Glover v. National Broadcasting Co., 594 F.2d 715 (8th Cir. 1979), and we do not assume that no material facts remain in dispute simply because both parties moved for summary judg......