Phifer v. Foe, 3667
| Decision Date | 02 August 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 3667,3667 |
| Citation | 41 A.L.R.3d 1078,443 P.2d 870 |
| Parties | Fred W. PHIFER, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. M. R. FOE and A. Edward Kendig, Appellees (Defendants below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
C. N. Bloomfield, Jr., of Ferrall & Bloomfield, Cheyenne, for appellant.
John J. Rooney, of Rooney & Horiskey, Teno Roncalio, of Roncalio, Graves & Smyth, Cheyenne, for appellee Foe.
A. G. McClintock, of McClintock, Mai & Urbigkit, Cheyenne, for appellee Kendig.
Before HARNSBERGER, C. J., and GRAY, McINTYRE, and PARKER, JJ.
Fred W. Phifer brought an action for libel in the district court of Platte County against M. R. Foe and A. Edward Kendig. The trial judge nonsuited plaintiff by granting separate motions of the defendants for summary judgment. Plaintiff-Phifer has appealed.
Plaintiff's suit was based on the alleged publication and distribution of a campaign handbill during the 1966 general election campaign, in which Phifer and Kendig were opponents in a contest for State Senator. The handbill was entitled Mud Can Be Too Deep And Too Slippery. It accused candidate Phifer of circulating the 'false and insidious rumor' that the county treasurer of Platte County had taken county money; and that the county commissioners and county attorney were 'covering for him and refuse to prosecute him.'
After declaring the 'ugly rumor' defaces and maligns characters and paints as dishonest citizens of the county who have enjoyed long and deserved reputations as persons of integrity, the circular stated there must be an answer. There then followed at considerable length an answer to Phifer's accusations against the county treasurer, the county commissioners, and the county attorney. The circular was signed by the Board of County Commissioners of Platte County, with the signature of each member of the board.
The affidavits and depositions upon which the motions for summary judgment were considered leave it undisputed that Foe, as county attorney, was asked by the county commissioners to prepare for them the circular in question, which he did. It was shown to Kendig, who offered only minor suggestions for changes in wording. After it was signed by the commissioners and printed copies were made, Foe (a candidate for reelection as county attorney) and Kendig took part in distribution of the circular by leaving copies at several places for others to hand out.
Phifer admits he had made the accusations referred to in the handbill, but of course he contends there was no justification for calling his accusations a 'false and insidious rumor.' Also, Phifer does not purport to have any evidence to show that defendants Foe and Kendig knew any of the facts to be different from what was stated and represented in the handbill.
Concerning the presence or absence of actual malice on the part of Foe and Kendig at the time the handbill was prepared and distributed, Phifer claims the handbill constituted a libel on its face-or per se. In a deposition, Phifer stated he knew of nothing to indicate Foe had any malice toward him. He stated the same with respect to Kendig and then added that Kendig and he had a heated campaign. He said if Kendig's 'answers' to my articles were not malicious, at least they showed he was at a pique.
Phifer's statement about Kendig's 'answers' to his own articles, in the midst of a heated campaign, points up the fact that reply (especially in a political campaign) enjoys a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacGuire v. Harriscope Broadcasting Co., s. 5051
...by the Supreme Court of the United States in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, has been espoused by this Court in Phifer v. Foe, Wyo., 443 P.2d 870 (1968), and Adams v. Frontier Broadcasting Company, Wyo., 555 P.2d 556 (1976). In Adams v. Frontier Broadcasting Company, supra, we recogn......
-
Dworkin v. L.F.P., Inc.
...United States Supreme Court's actual malice standard for liability. We had recognized and adopted that standard in Phifer v. Foe, 443 P.2d 870, 41 A.L.R.3d 1078 (Wyo.1968). We often have applied that standard in affirming summary judgments. See, e.g., Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Int'l v.......
-
Lever v. Community First Bancshares, Inc., 99-46.
...of a conditionally privileged communication, an absence of malice entitles the defendant to judgment as a matter of law. Phifer v. Foe, Wyo., 443 P.2d 870 (1968); Tschirgi v. Lander Wyoming State Journal, supra, 706 P.2d Williams, 741 P.2d at 596-97. In the instant case, we conclude that, a......
-
Williams v. Blount
...of a conditionally privileged communication, an absence of malice entitles the defendant to judgment as a matter of law. Phifer v. Foe, Wyo., 443 P.2d 870 (1968); Tschirgi v. Lander Wyoming State Journal, supra, 706 P.2d 2. No Genuine Issue of Material Fact Stage six, Cordova v. Gosar, supr......