Hanks v. Beckley Newspapers Corp., 12824
| Decision Date | 17 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 12824,12824 |
| Citation | 153 W.Va. 834,172 S.E.2d 816 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | C. Harold HANKS v. BECKLEY NEWSPAPERS CORPORATION, a Corporation. |
Syllabus by the Court
A motion for summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, affidavits or other evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Bailey, Worrell, Camper & Viers, Harry G. Camper, Jr., Welch, D. Grove Moler, Mullens, for appellant.
Lynch, Mann & Knapp, Jack A. Mann, G. Berk Lynch, Beckley, for appellee.
This is an action in libel instituted in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County by C. Harold Hanks, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, against Beckley Newspapers Corporation, a corporation engaged in the business of publishing newspapers. Upon the pleadings and after the testimony was adduced, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, C. Harold Hanks, in the amount of $5,000.00 and a judgment was entered in that amount. Appeal from said judgment was denied by this Court and, upon petition, certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court held that the failure to make an investigation did not constitute proof sufficient to present a jury question as to whether the statements were published with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not. It further said that nothing in the record reveals 'the high degree of awareness of * * * probable falsity demanded by New York Times * * *'. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court of Wyoming County for further proceedings 'not inconsistent with this opinion.'
Subsequently, in January, 1968, the plaintiff moved the court to docket this case for a new trial at the March Term, 1968, and requested permission to take the discovery depositions of Emile J. Hodel and others prior to the trial date. The defendant on February 5, 1968 filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that there was no genuine issue of fact to be tried by a jury. The motion assigned the following reasons: (1) The alleged publications are not actionable; (2) The circumstances under which they were published show them to be privileged publications; (3) They were not published with malice; (4) They were not published with a known resort to falsehood; (5) They were not published with a total disregard of the probability of falsity. In support of its motion the defendant assigns the record in the original trial of this case, the opinion and mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States and the affidavit of Emile J. Hodel, the author of the alleged offensive statements. The plaintiff opposed the granting of summary judgment contending that there was a genuine issue of fact involved and in support thereof offered the affidavit of C. Harold Hanks and the deposition of Emile J. Hodel.
The circuit court on December 13, 1968 entered an order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. In his opinion filed as a part of the record the trial judge indicated that the posture of the case was the same as when it was presented to the Supreme Court of the United States and added in relation to Emile J. Hodel's deposition that 'the case would be no stronger with his evidence than it was without it.' The plaintiff thereafter prosecuted this appeal.
The statements alleged to be libelous were contained in editorials written by Emile J. Hodel and published by Beckley Newspapers Corporation, the defendant, during the years 1960, 1961 and 1962. Primarily such statements were editorial comments in relation to the plaintiff's bid for reelection in 1962. Although the plaintiff says that he still relies on all of the alleged offensive statements designated in the original action, he concedes that the Supreme Court eliminated all but one statement in determining whether the defendant was guilty of libel. That statement, included in an editorial dated September 4, 1962 read:
'The only conclusion to which we can come is that either Hanks and Mrs. Hurt have been in league toward the fanatic end, believing all the wild-eyed ravings against fluoridation despite decades of experience to disprove them, or that perhaps his blustering threats were able to intimidate the lady.'
The basic question on this appeal is whether summary judgment should have been granted. Summary judgment strikes at the heart of a claim. It is a device designed to effect a prompt disposition of controversies on their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc.
...designed to effect a prompt disposition of controversies on their merits without resort to a lengthy trial, Hanks v. Beckley Newspapers Corp., 153 W.Va. 834, 172 S.E.2d 816 (1970), such judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried. As s......
-
McCullough Oil, Inc. v. Rezek
...any circumstances.' Syl. Pt. 1, George v. Blosser, 157 W.Va. 811, 204 S.E.2d 567 (1974), quoting, Hanks v. Beckley Newspapers Corp., 153 W.Va. 834, [837,] 172 S.E.2d 816 [, 818] (1970). The briefs of McCullough submitted to this Court indicate that there was no marketing of production. The ......
-
First Nat. Bank of Morgantown v. McGill
...controversy and show affirmatively that the adverse party cannot prevail under any circumstances.' Hanks v. Beckley Newspapers Corporation, 153 W.Va. 834 [, 837, 172 S.E.2d 816, 818] (1970)." Syl. pt. 1, George v. Blosser, 157 W.Va. 811, 204 S.E.2d 567 Charles S. Armistead, Baker & Armistea......
-
Aluise v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...Harrison v. Town of Eleanor, 191 W.Va. 611, 447 S.E.2d 546, (W.Va.1994) (emphasis added) (quoting Syllabus, Hanks v. Beckley Newspapers Corp., 153 W.Va. 834, 172 S.E.2d 816 (1970)). See also Trafalgar House Const., Inc. v. ZMM, Inc., 211 W.Va. 578, 586 n. 2, 567 S.E.2d 294, 302 n. 2 (2002) ......