Kidder v. Anderson
Decision Date | 21 March 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 11205,11205 |
Citation | 345 So.2d 922 |
Parties | 2 Media L. Rep. 1645 Howard A. KIDDER v. Bob ANDERSON and Capital City Press, Inc. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Robert L. Kleinpeter, Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiff-appellee Howard A. Kidder.
Frank W. Middleton, Jr., Frank M. Coates, Jr., W. Arthur Abercrombie, Jr., Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendants-appellants.
Before SARTAIN, COVINGTON and LOTTINGER, JJ.
This is a defamation action by Howard A. Kidder, Acting Chief of Police, against Bob Anderson, newspaper reporter, and Capital City Press, Inc., the owner and publisher of the Morning Advocate and State Times newspapers and the employer of Bob Anderson, for damages in the amount of five and one-half million dollars, arising out of several newspaper articles and editorials appearing in the newspapers, in one or the other or both, from June 12, 1974, through August 8, 1974. The plaintiff alleged that the 'offending statements' published by the defendants were calculated to degrade him and to hold him up to public ridicule in that they depicted him, a law enforcement officer, as operating a house of prostitution, as engaging in illicit dealings with barroom proprietors and gamblers, and as using the influence of his office for personal gain.
The defendants denied that the 'offending statements' were defamatory. They also expressly pleaded constituional rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and truth, as defenses.
During the course of the proceedings, the defendants moved for partial summary judgments, primarily based on the failure of the plaintiff to show sufficient evidence of 'actual malice' to let the case go to the jury.
The motions for partial summary judgment were denied by the lower court. Then, applications for supervisory writs were made to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court for review of the summary judgment denials. Both appellate courts declined the applications for writs, finding no error in the lower court's finding of genuine issues of material facts in dispute.
The case then proceeded to trial by jury. After an eight-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages in the amount of $400,000.00. From the judgment implementing the jury's verdict, the defendants have suspensively appealed.
The trial court properly denied both motions for partial summary judgment. It is only when there is no genuine issue as to a material fact that the mover is entitled to summary judgment. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966. In ruling on such a motion, it is not the function of the lower court to determine the merits of the issues raised; its function is to determine whether or not there is a genuine issue of material fact. Metoyer v. Aetna Insurance Company, 278 So.2d 847 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1973).
In Batson v. Time, Inc., 298 So.2d 100 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1974). Writ den., La., 299 So.2d 803, we had occasion to consider a motion for summary judgment; and, in sustaining the lower court's rejection of a motion for summary judgment, we acknowledged 'the chilling effects of a lengthy and costly trial' on First Amendment rights, and then remarked:
'Equally pertinent, however, is the well established rule that in cases of this nature, the courts are most careful to protect plaintiff's right to jury trial, when disposing of a motion for summary judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 56. In applying Rule 56, the courts note the Rule's provision that, on trial of a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff may not rely upon his pleadings but must, by affidavit or otherwise, set forth facts and allegations which establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Also in applying Rule 56, the courts grant summary judgment where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits and admissions disclose the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 'More importantly, the Federal cases have repeatedly held that in a defamation action, as in other actions, the adverse party against whom summary judgment is requested is entitled to have all the evidence, depositions, affidavits and inferences reasonably drawn from them, viewed in the light most favorable to him in determining whether he has shown the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.'
The guidelines for the use of the summary judgment procedure as authorized by LSA-C.C.P. art. 966 are well established. They are succinctly stated in the case of Roy & Roy v. Riddle, 187 So.2d 492 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1966), writ ref., 249 La. 724, 190 So.2d 236, as follows:
Turning to the federal jurisprudence for guidance, we find the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in Guam Federation of Teachers, Local 1581, A.F.T. v. Ysrael, 492 F.2d 438 (C.A. 9 1974), stated:
We also find the language of Whitaker v. Coleman, 115 F.2d 305 (C.A. 5 1940), particularly applicable to a case of this nature:
We think too that 10 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil section 2712, pp. 387--389, Rule 56, places the summary judgment in proper perspective:
With the foregoing law in mind, we have reviewed the pleadings exhibits, affidavits and other evidence available for consideration by the court on the motions for summary judgment. The affidavits filed by movers do not measure up to the standard set out by LSA-C.C .P. art. 967. They fail to affirmatively show that the facts set forth in the affidavits were matters within the personal knowledge of the affiants. We said in Benoit v. Burger Chef Systems of Lafayette, Inc., 257 So.2d 439 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1972):
We find that the proof of the mover fails to establish the nonexistence of genuine issues of fact in the instant case.
We agree with the trial judge that there were genuine issues of material facts even if we accepted movers' affidavits, and that it was proper for the case to go to trial by jury. The plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to meet the New York Times standard. We interpret the Guam case as completely refuting the view of Judge Wright in Wasserman v. Time, Inc., 138 U.S.App.D.C . 7, 424 F.2d 920 (1970), followed in Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 426 F.2d 858 (5 Cir. 1970). There is no acceptance by the Federal courts that the court must weigh or re-weigh the evidence or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hailey v. KTBS, Inc.
...of the Chicago police department, Weber v. Woods, 31 Ill.App.3d 122, 334 N.E.2d 857 (1975); an acting chief of police, Kidder v. Anderson, 345 So.2d 922 (La.Ct.App.1977); a detective in the town police department, Roche v. Egan, 433 A.2d 757 (Me.1981); a city police officer, Tucci v. Guy Ga......
-
Brannan v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.
...against defendant television station for segment which aired during 6:00 p.m. newscast. Reversed on other grounds. 3. Kidder v. Anderson, 345 So.2d 922 (La.App. 1 Cir.1977) writ issued 346 So. 2d 1271--Reversed on other grounds 354 So.2d 1306 (La.1978); Cert. denied 439 U.S. 829, 99 S.Ct. 1......
-
McHale v. Lake Charles American Press
..."In arriving at the amount of damages, the Court has been influenced by the decision of the La. Court of Appeal in Kidder v. Anderson, 345 So.2d 922 (La.App.1 Cir.1977), reversed on other grounds, 354 So.2d 1306 ((La.)1978). That Court, in reducing a jury award from $400,000 to $100,000, "W......
-
Nevada Independent Broadcasting Corp. v. Allen
... ... Page 347 ... See Kidder v. Anderson, 345 So.2d 922 (La.App.1977), rev'd, 354 So.2d 1306 (La.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 829, 99 S.Ct. 105, 58 L.Ed.2d 123 (1978); Stone v ... ...