Hill v. Lakeland Ledger Pub. Corp., 68-340
| Decision Date | 30 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 68-340,68-340 |
| Parties | J. D. HILL, Appellant, v. LAKELAND LEDGER PUBLISHING CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John Kaylor and Harry King, Winter Haven, for appellant.
Lawton Chiles, of Carr & Chiles, Lakeland, and Parker Thomson of Paul & Thomson, Miami, for appellee.
This is a libel action in which appellant directly appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of appellee, hereinafter called The Ledger. We affirm.
On October 31, 1966 The Ledger published the article which appellant claims is libelous. The pertinent portions thereof are as follows:
Chemical Sales to City
'WINTER HAVEN--Former Winter Haven Mayor J. D. Hill was in criminal violation of Florida Statutes when a chemical firm of which he is president sold supplies to the city, according to information received by The Ledger from State Atorney (sic) General Earl Faircloth.
Four invoices show that Engineered Chemicals sold a total of $273.75 in various chemicals to the city.
Since Hill is listed as president of the company, and was a city commissioner at the time of the purchases, his action appears to be in direct violation of Florida Statute 839.09.
Under the provisions of this law, Hill 'shall be punished, upon conviction, by a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding one year.'
THE STATURE (sic) was pointed out in an attorney general's opinion of Dec. 5, 1958, and it carries an underlined title:
'Boards not to Purchase Supplies from Member of Board.'
Section 839.09 reads in part:
'No state or county or municipal board or council shall purchase supplies, goods or materials for public use from any firm or corporation in which any member of such board is either directly or indirectly interested, nor shall any such board pay for such supplies, goods or materials so purchased.'
Hill is listed as president of the firm, and Robert C. Reiter is vice president.
* * * The official minutes of the regular meeting of the city commission held Wednesday, February 16, 1966, showed that Reiter reimbursed the city for the $273.75 it has paid to Engineered Chemicals on the four different occasions.
At this meeting Reiter returned to the city a check for $273.75 for the aformentioned (sic) city purchases.
Mr. Reiter stated he further wished to emphasize that Mayor Hill was unaware until a few hours ago that he (Reiter) had permitted sales totaling $273.75 to be made to the city. Mr. Reiter then presented a check to the city clerk.
According to one prominent Winter Haven attorney due process of law would be for any interested taxpayer or citizen to present all accumulated information of Hill's apparent violation of Statute 839.09 to the county solicitor's office or take the information to a judge and attempt to secure a warrant for Hill's arrest.
The attorney cautioned that under due process, Hill may have been ignorant of the fact that the firm of which he was president was selling chemicals to the City of Winter Haven.'
Now it is conceded by The Ledger that the headline and the first paragraph of the published article may be misleading and subject to 'possible misinterpretation', because in truth and in fact the state Attorney General did not advise The Ledger that appellant himself specifically violated any statute; nor, admittedly, did the Attorney General rule in any manner on the specifics involving appellant. It is patent from the record that these statements were merely conclusions drawn by the authors of the headline and of the article, and resulted from a reading of an opinion rendered in 1958, by then Attorney General Ervin, 1 in which a hypothetical factual situation similar to the facts herein was determined to be a violation of § 839.09, F.S.A. A copy of that earlier opinion was forwarded by the present Attorney General's office to the author of the article in question here when the latter made inquiry during his investigation of the matters depicted in the article. So it may be said that insofar as the subject article suggests that the present Attorney General of Florida held appellant to be in criminal violation of law, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bishop v. Wometco Enterprises, Inc.
...has recently been pointed out by the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida in the case of Hill v. Lakeland Ledger Publishing Corporation, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 254 (opinion filed January 30, 1970), wherein the following is 'We conclude, therefore, that this case is controlled by our ......
-
Smith v. Cuban American Nat. Foundation, 96-2702.
...So.2d at 503; Early, 354 So.2d at 352; Bishop v. Wometco Enters., Inc., 235 So.2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Hill v. Lakeland Ledger Publ'g Corp., 231 So.2d 254, 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Hammond v. Times Publ'g Co., 162 So.2d 681, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); McCormick, 139 So.2d at The Florida stan......
-
Valentine v. C.B.S., Inc.
...plates. Cast against this testimony, it is obvious the lyrics are substantially and materially true, see Hill v. Lakeland Ledger Publishing Corp., 231 So.2d 254 (Fla.App.1970), and are not reasonably susceptible to a defamatory meaning. Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So.2d 774 (Fla.App.1973), cert. d......
-
Dockery v. Florida Democratic Party, 97-03534
...be sufficient to state a cause of action, even if the plaintiff were determined to be a public figure. See Hill v. Lakeland Ledger Pub. Corp., 231 So.2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Because this issue may never be reached in the trial court, we decline to rule on it at this time. We reverse the ......