Madison v. Yunker, 13741
Decision Date | 16 October 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 13741,13741 |
Citation | 589 P.2d 126,35 St.Rep. 1311,180 Mont. 54 |
Parties | , 4 Media L. Rep. 1337 A. P. MADISON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Carey Matovich YUNKER, Individually and as Editor of the Montana Kaimin, the University of Montana Student Newspaper, The Montana Kaimin, et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Boone, Karlberg & Haddon, Missoula, Sam E. Haddon (argued), Missoula, for appellant.
Carlton & Stephens, Billings, Herron & Meloy, Helena, Peter M. Meloy (argued), Helena, Bruce B. Barrett (argued), Missoula, Richard Volinkaty (argued), Missoula, Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, Missoula, Gary Graham (argued), Missoula, for respondents.
Brinton Markle, Helena, amicus curiae.
Plaintiff appeals from the order of the District Court, Missoula County, granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action for libel and from the entry of judgment for defendants.
The present cause of action arose out of a purported libelous publication written by defendant Carey Matovich Yunker (Yunker) and published in the October 8, 1974 edition of the Montana Kaimin, the University of Montana student newspaper. In pertinent part the editorial states:
* * * "
On December 9, 1974, Madison filed a complaint against defendants in the District Court alleging defendant Yunker, acting in her capacity as editor of the Montana Kaimin, deliberately and maliciously libeled plaintiff by publishing false defamatory statements. Plaintiff pleaded noncompliance with section 64-207.1, R.C.M.1947, (Montana's retraction statute) on the grounds that section is unconstitutional and the purported libel was not within the scope of section 64-207.1.
Madison prayed for judgment in his favor and an award of special, general, and punitive or exemplary damages in the aggregate amount of $102,000.
On December 30 and 31, 1974, defendants filed motions to dismiss Madison's complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b), M.R.Civ.P., on the grounds the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and the District Court lacked jurisdiction over parties in a libel action until Madison complied with section 64-207.1. The University of Montana's motion to dismiss was based upon the additional ground that no claim had been filed against the University of Montana pursuant to section 82-4312, R.C.M.1947.
On January 31, 1975, Madison filed a motion to defer consideration of matters raised in the consolidated motion of the University of Montana pending final determination of the constitutionality of section 64-207.1. Madison and the University of Montana stipulated that the resolution of the constitutionality of section 64-207.1 was a condition precedent to the maintenance of any action for libel.
On May 29, 1975, the District Court heard oral argument on defendants' separate motions to dismiss. Briefs in support of and in opposition to the motions to dismiss were filed by the parties. On December 22, 1976, the District Court issued an order granting defendants' motions to dismiss on the grounds section 64-207.1 is constitutional under the 1972 Montana Constitution and Madison failed to demand a retraction pursuant to section 64-207.1, defendants being entitled to " * * * an opportunity to publish a retraction to mitigate actual or compensatory damages, if any." Judgment was accordingly entered for defendants.
The issues presented for review, as stated by appellant Madison, are:
1. Does section 64-207.1, R.C.M.1947, requiring a demand for retraction as a prerequisite to an action for libel, impose unconstitutional restraints upon personal liberties and rights guaranteed by Article II, 1972 Montana Constitution and the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
2. Does section 64-207.1, R.C.M.1947, have any application in a libel action founded upon publication of an obvious intentional falsehood?
We are handed for determination a classic confrontation between basic and treasured constitutional rights, the freedom of speech and press guaranteed under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, on the one hand, and the rights of an individual to be secure from defamation on the other. The pivotal determination we must make is the constitutional validity of section 64-207.1. For on that determination, all else in this case depends. It requires, as we said in Granger v. Time, Inc. (1977), Mont., 568 P.2d 535, 541, 34 St.Rep. 983, a " * * * careful balancing of the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press, and the personal dignity interests underlying the law of defamation".
At the outset, we set out in full the statute which is under attack:
(Emphasis added.)
The pertinent part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
" * * * No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Article II, 1972 Montana Constitution, has several sections which are pertinent to or have some significance in this case:
It will be noted that several of the foregoing provisions of the Montana Constitution repeat or restate like provisions in the United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bichler v. Union Bank & Trust Co. of Grand Rapids
...Newspapers, Inc. (1975), 367 Mass. 849, 330 N.E.2d 161; Jacron Sales Co. v. Sindorf (1976), 276 Md. 580, 350 A.2d 688; Madison v. Yunker (1978), 180 Mont. 54, 589 P.2d 126; McCusker v. Valley News (1981), 121 N.H. 258, 428 A.2d 493; Marchiondo v. Brown (1982), 98 N.M. 394, 649 P.2d 462; Mar......
-
Gazette, Inc. v. Harris
...276 Md. 580, 350 A.2d 688 (1976); Stone v. Essex County Newspapers, Inc., 367 Mass. 849, 330 N.E.2d 161 (1975); Madison v. Yunker, 180 Mont. 54, 589 P.2d 126 (1978); McCusker v. Valley News, 121 N.H. 258, 428 A.2d 493, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1017, 102 S.Ct. 552, 70 L.Ed.2d 415 (1981); March......
-
Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co.
...Star & Tribune Co. (Minn.1985) 367 N.W.2d 476, 491; Hyde v. City of Columbia (Mo.Ct.App.1982) 637 S.W.2d 251, 266; Madison v. Yunker (1978) 180 Mont. 54, 589 P.2d 126, 133; McCusker v. Valley News (1981) 121 N.H. 258, 428 A.2d 493, 494; Marchiondo v. Brown (1982) 98 N.M. 394, 649 P.2d 462, ......
-
MacGuire v. Harriscope Broadcasting Co., s. 5051
...v. Fort Collins Newspapers, Inc., Colo.App., 599 P.2d 931 (1979); Bandelin v. Pietsch, 98 Idaho 337, 563 P.2d 395 (1977); Madison v. Yunker, Mont., 589 P.2d 126 (1978). These are the legal standards relating to actual malice which are applicable to the right of either MacGuire or McMurry to......
-
Tortious Tweets: A Practical Guide to Applying Traditional Defamation Law to Twibel Claims
...minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive one of their confidence and friendly intercourse in society.”), with Madison v. Yunker, 589 P.2d 126, 129 (Mont. 1978) (“Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing . . . which exposes any persons to hatred, contempt, ri......