McDermott v. Biddle
| Citation | 436 Pa.Super. 94,647 A.2d 514 |
| Parties | , 22 Media L. Rep. 2097 J. Bradley McDERMOTT and James T. McDermott, Jr., and Michael J. McDermott, Executors of the Estate of the Honorable James T. McDermott, Deceased, Appellants, v. Daniel R. BIDDLE, Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., and Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc. J. Bradley McDERMOTT, and James T. McDermott, Jr., and Michael J. McDermott, Executors of the Estate of the Honorable James T. McDermott, Deceased v. Daniel R. BIDDLE, L. Stuart Ditzen, William K. Marimow, Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., and Knight Ridder Newspapers, Inc. J. Bradley McDERMOTT, and James T. McDermott, Jr., and Michael J. McDermott, Executors of the Estate of the Honorable James T. McDermott, Deceased v. Daniel R. BIDDLE, L. Stuart Ditzen, William K. Marimow, Edwin Guthman, Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., and Knight Ridder Newspapers, Inc. Appeal of Daniel R. BIDDLE and Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. |
| Decision Date | 14 September 1994 |
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
James E. Beasley, Philadelphia, for McDermotts.
William T. Hangley, Philadelphia, for Biddle, Phl. Newspapers & Knight-Rider Newspapers.
Before ROWLEY, P.J., and OLSZEWSKI 1 and BECK, JJ.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, dismissing a defendant and granting a new trial in consolidated defamation actions. 2 The actions, originally brought by the now deceased James T. McDermott, former justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 3 arose out of two publications, one in 1983 and one in 1984, by defendant, appellee-cross-appellant, Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. ("PNI"). The issues raised on appeal are numerous and complex. They arise in the following factual and procedural context.
On May 15, 16 and 17, 1983, PNI published a three installment series of articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer. The series, entitled "Above the Law" ("ATL I"), was authored by a PNI reporter, Daniel R. Biddle, who is also an appellee-cross-appellant. 4 The series was the result of an eighteen month investigation into the workings of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. As the title of the article suggested, the investigation allegedly revealed a court that functioned as if it were above, instead of governed by, the law. The first article in the series, published on May 15, 1983, began with the following indictment:
Some justices routinely participate in cases in which their friends or associates have an interest.
They routinely ignore judicial canons of ethics meant to regulate their conduct.
They routinely engage in politicking, influence-peddling and favoritism and exhibit a head-in-the-sand attitude toward policing themselves and the rest of the state court system.
Indeed, the court, which is charged with setting and enforcing standards not just for itself but for the state's entire court system, does not adhere even to minimum standards governing conflict of interest.
Both the May 15th and May 16th articles specifically discussed the conduct of Justice McDermott in an allegedly defamatory manner. The trial court has aptly summarized the allegedly defamatory aspects of these articles as follows:
The May 15th article specifically discussed the involvement of Supreme Court Justice James T. McDermott in two cases before the Supreme Court, the "Coal Case" and the "Filbert Partnership Case" and his relationships with lawyers and law firms representing parties in those cases. The "Coal Case", according to author Biddle, was an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by the Department of Environmental Resources ["DER"] and some environmental groups from an order issued by the Commonwealth Court, at the request of Pennsylvania coal companies represented by the law firm of Dilworth Paxson. The Order directed the Commonwealth to wait a full year before seeking federal approval of new environmental regulations. DER and the environmental groups asked the Supreme Court for an immediate hearing on their appeal because of "an imminent danger of mine fires, water pollution and other hazards." The coal industry opposed an expedited hearing. The article reported that the request for an expedited hearing was refused by the Supreme Court which held no hearing on the matter until more than a year later when the Court ruled that the issue had become moot. The defendant reported that in that year the Plaintiff [Justice McDermott] () "received a total of $6,100 from Dilworth Paxson lawyers in his successful Supreme Court campaign" and that approximately three months before the hearing was finally held the Plaintiff went on a day long tour of the coal region of Schuylkill County accompanied by, and in a limousine "provided" by John Elliott, a Dilworth Paxson lawyer. The article also stated that John Elliott's brother Thomas was one of four Dilworth Paxson lawyers handling the Coal Case before the Supreme Court. The article also included the Plaintiff's response to questions about his "role in the case": "[McDermott] contended that his close friendship with lawyer John Elliott, his campaign funds from the Dilworth Paxson firm and his coal country limousine ride constituted no impropriety, nor even the appearance of impropriety." The "Coal Case" portion of the article concluded with the remarks of a lawyer for one of the environmental groups who, upon learning of the campaign contributions made by the coal company's attorney's responded: "Incredible" ...
The "Filbert Partnership Case" concerned another case brought before the Supreme Court, the day following the "Coal Case" decision, by the Dilworth Paxson law firm. The Filbert Limited Partnership, represented by Harry Kalish, John Elliott and two other Dilworth Paxson lawyers, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the partnership's suit against the City of Philadelphia. The partners "claimed that their building had, in effect, been condemned by the city's plans to excavate a gaping hole" in front of the partner's building for the construction of a center city commuter tunnel. The article stated that two lower courts had rejected the partner's suit. While the Supreme Court denied the partnership's petition, the article stated that Justice Nix wrote a report urging his colleagues on the Court to grant a hearing on the appeal and that Justice McDermott "by his own account supported Nix's report." Justice McDermott was reported to have agreed that the "combination of circumstances--the Elliott friendship, the limousine trip, and the campaign money--might make an opposing lawyer question McDermott's impartiality." This section of the article concluded with this quote from Justice McDermott "[y]ou have a point, that somebody could feel uncomfortable with that ... [b]ut there's really no basis for it."
The second article, published on May 16, 1983, contained the following excerpts which Plaintiff claimed were defamatory of him:
....
The article then cited the following example:
A photograph of the Plaintiff appeared after the foregoing excerpt and below the photograph the following caption appeared:
These two articles, as well as that published on May 17, 1983, also addressed many other aspects of the manner in which the Supreme Court conducted its business, and commented on specific conduct by the other justices. The articles indicted the court for its lavish spending on its own facilities and on expense accounts for the justices who were never called upon to account for their spending practices. The articles also included a lengthy discussion of Justice Larsen's conduct and of the investigation of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board into his activities, of Chief Justice Nix's conduct in connection with garnering support for his retention on the court in 1981, and of these and other justices' conduct in connection with the employment of friends, relatives and supporters.
Justice McDermott brought suit based upon the allegedly defamatory content of these two articles in June 1983. The defendants named in this action were Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., Daniel R. Biddle, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., which was the parent company...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co.
...pan el, with the remaining two judges either dissenting or concurring in the result, is of no precedential value); McDermott v. Biddle, 436 Pa.Super. 94, 647 A.2d 514 (1994) (for any principle of law expressed in a decision of this Court to be considered precedent, it must command a majorit......
-
Com. v. Rice
...A.2d 372, 376 n. 3 (1994) (noting that a plurality opinion of this Court lacks the authority of precedent); McDermott v. Biddle, 436 Pa.Super. 94, 647 A.2d 514, 524 n. 8 (1994), rev'd on other grounds, 544 Pa. 21, 674 A.2d 665 (1996) (stating that for any principle of law expressed in a Maj......
-
Harrisburg School Dist. v. Hickok
...members dissented. As a result, the opinion in Fumo is a non-precedential plurality decision. See, e.g., McDermott v. Biddle, 436 Pa.Super. 94, 115 n. 8, 647 A.2d 514, 524 n. 8 (1994), rev'd on other grounds, 544 Pa. 21, 674 A.2d 665 (1996) ("[I]n order for any principle of law expressed in......
-
Fillmore v. Hill
...waiver in that case. The fifth judge concurred in the result only and not on the issue of waiver. See McDermott v. Biddle, 436 Pa.Super. 94, 115 n. 8, 647 A.2d 514, 524 n. 8 (1994).2 The instant case is additionally distinguishable from the cases on waiver relied upon by the trial court bec......