Hart v. Blalock
| Decision Date | 04 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 86389,86389 |
| Citation | 932 P.2d 1124 |
| Parties | Walter Dean HART, Jr., Appellant, v. Candace Landers BLALOCK, Appellee. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Robert A. Flagler, Flagler & Flagler, Norman, for Appellant.
Bill V. Wilkinson, Tulsa, for Appellee.
This is an appeal from the order of the District Court of Garvin County, Oklahoma, Honorable Robert A. Layden trial judge, sustaining the demurrer of Appellee, Candace Landers Blalock to the evidence of Appellant, Walter Dean Hart, Jr. in a libel and slander action.
Mr. Hart sued Ms. Blalock for libel and slander on November 4, 1994, four days before an election for district judge of Garvin, McClain, and Cleveland Counties, which was to be held on November 8. Mr. Hart, the incumbent, had been appointed to the office in January 1994, and in his first election was opposed by Ms. Blalock. Mr. Hart originally sued both Ms. Blalock and Lacy Joe Champion, alleging that Mr. Hart was "presently campaigning in an election to retain the office of district judge...." Mr. Hart dismissed his suit against Mrs. Champion with prejudice on the first day of trial, in August 1995, and she is not a party to this appeal. Ms. Blalock was elected district judge.
On Sunday, October 30, 1994, the Pauls Valley Daily Democrat newspaper ran an advertisement paid for by Mrs. Champion in which Mrs. Champion stated that, in 1977, Mr. Hart, in league with his father and law partner, W.D. Hart, Sr., bought land owned by Mrs. Champion in a mortgage foreclosure action. Mrs. Champion claimed that Mr. Hart, Jr. bought the land for far less than it was worth at a time when Mr. Hart, Sr. was holding the land in trust for Mr. Champion, and that the Harts failed to serve Mrs. Champion with a summons. Mrs. Champion said that the Harts told the foreclosure court that they did not know her whereabouts, although her mailing address and telephone number were in the Harts' file. Mrs. Champion also described a series of state and federal court suits she filed against the Harts, the ultimate result of which was the recovery from Mr. Hart, Jr. of the minerals, mineral income, and the value of the surface estate.
Mrs. Champion's advertisement loosed a spate of negative advertising over the next week in various newspapers and over various radio stations from Ms. Blalock, Mr. Hart, and Alan Agee, who was Mrs. Champion's lawyer. Ms. Blalock ran several newspaper ads and radio commercials in which she repeated Mrs. Champion's charges.
On November 1, Mr. Hart placed a newspaper ad headed "SLANDER--BLALOCK STYLE" in which he said "Dean Hart, Jr. unequivocally states that Champion's Ad is nothing but a vile lie, misstatement of truth, and complete distortion of fact." Mr. Hart also said in his ad that Alan Agee, Mrs. Champion's lawyer, was Ms. Blalock's "principal supporter and financial backer," and that a dismissal and favorable plea bargains had been made concerning concealed weapons and drug charges against Mr. Agee's son while Ms. Blalock was an assistant district attorney. Mr. Hart also said, "If Agee could have his own judge, then business as usual would continue for him at the courthouse." Mr. Hart added, "Judge Hart has continued to take the high road while Blalock travels the low and lower road."
Mr. Agee countered Mr. Hart's ad with a full-page ad of his own on November 3 in which he reproduced court and land records reflecting a $17,000.00 jury verdict against Mr. Hart in favor of Mrs. Champion and a deed from Mr. Hart, Sr. and Mr. Hart, Jr. conveying real property to Mrs. Champion. Mr. Agee's ad also said, "If your ad is what you consider to be the high road, it says a great deal about your judgment and character." Mr. Agee's ad then challenged Mr. Hart to join Mr. Agee and Mrs. Champion at a meeting at 4:30 p.m. the next day to answer questions from the media and the public concerning Mrs. Champion's ad.
The next day, November 4, Mr. Hart filed suit against Ms. Blalock and Mrs. Champion, but did not attend the meeting Mr. Agee had advertised. On November 7, the day before the election, Ms. Blalock placed a full page ad saying, among other things, "HART DUCKS WIDOW'S CHALLENGE," and "WHERE'S NO-SHOW HART?"
Mr. Hart admitted at trial that a $17,000.00 verdict had been entered against him in Mrs. Champion's favor, and that he and his father had conveyed property to Mrs. Champion, all as alleged in Mr. Agee's ad, and repeated in Ms. Blalock's ads.
Was there evidence in the record that would have supported a jury finding that Ms. Blalock published defamatory falsehoods with a reckless disregard for whether they were false? We hold that there was not sufficient evidence to send the issue to a jury and that the trial court correctly sustained Ms. Blalock's demurrer to Mr. Hart's evidence.
When so called "public figures," that is individuals in the public eye, such as political candidates, sue for libel or slander their rights to recover are severely limited. Before a public official, or one running for public office, may recover for defamation he must show: (1) The publication of a defamatory statement, (2) that was false, and (3) was made with "actual malice," that is with knowledge that it was false or was made with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false. Miskovsky v. Oklahoma Publishing Co., 654 P.2d 587, 589-90 (Okla.1982), discussing New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). In New York Times, the United States Supreme Court held that guaranteeing the public's interest in robust discussion of public affairs called for a rule in defamation cases that would require public officials to show that defamatory comments made about them were both false and made in reckless disregard of their falsity. Subsequently, in St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968), the court amplified the definition of "reckless disregard" to include a requirement that the statement was made, although the publisher "entertained serious doubts" concerning its truthfulness. Hodges v. Oklahoma Journal Publishing Company, 617 P.2d 191, 194-95 (Okla.1980).
Mr. Hart concedes that he is a public figure and that the New York Times rule applies to this case. Mr. Hart contends that his published statement that Mrs. Champion's ad contained "lies" required Ms. Blalock not to republish Mrs. Champion's accusations because they were false. This is not the law, as the trial court found.
Ms. Blalock looked at the file of Alan Agee, Mrs. Champion's lawyer, and satisfied herself that Mrs. Champion's statements were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grogan v. Kokh Llc
...include a requirement that the statement was made, although the publisher ‘entertained serious doubts' concerning its truthfulness.Hart v. Blalock, 1997 OK 8, ¶ 9, 932 P.2d 1124, 1126 (citations omitted). ¶ 11 The material facts regarding Grogan's defamation theory of recovery are not in di......
-
Herbert v. Oklahoma Christian Coalition, 93,062.
...New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. at 726. This Court reiterated the New York Times standard in Hart v. Blalock, 1997 OK 8 & 9, 932 P.2d 1124, 1126 (Okla.1997) and stated that absent proof of actual knowledge of the falsity of a third party's accusations, Blalock's republicati......
-
White v. City of Del City, 107,711.Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
...this standard requires that the publisher of the statement have “entertained serious doubts” as to the truth of the statement, see Hart v. Blalock, 1997 OK 8, ¶ 9, 932 P.2d 1124, 1126, we find that a party cannot act with “reckless disregard” and also be acting within the “scope of employme......
-
Daniels v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. (0-001) of Okla. Cnty.
...this standard requires that the publisher of the statement have "entertained serious doubts" as to the truth of the statement, see Hart v. Blalock, 1997 OK 8, ¶ 9, 932 P.2d 1124, 1126, we find that a party cannot act with "reckless disregard" and also be acting within the "scope of employme......