Schaefer v. State Bar of Wisconsin
Decision Date | 19 April 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 75-313,75-313 |
Citation | 252 N.W.2d 343,77 Wis.2d 120 |
Parties | Marilynn H. SCHAEFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE BAR OF WISCONSIN, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The action is for libel. On June 5, 1975, the circuit court entered judgment sustaining the demurrer to the complaint and ordering that the complaint be dismissed upon its merits and with prejudice. The plaintiff, Marilynn H. Schaefer, appeals.
Marilynn H. Schaefer, pro se.
Axley, Brynelson, Herrick & Gehl, Madison, for defendant-respondent.
The issue is whether the statements of the defendant, as alleged by the plaintiff, are not defamatory as a matter of law.
The plaintiff, Marilynn H. Schaefer, is the widow of Ben G. Schaefer. The will of Ben G. Schaefer was admitted to probate on December 9, 1969. The gross estate was approximately $1,400,000. Problems have arisen in the probate proceedings and considerable litigation has resulted.
On December 11, 1972, newspaper articles about the plaintiff-appellant, Marilynn H Schaefer, appeared throughout the State of Wisconsin. These articles set forth the difficulties she was having in probating the estate of her husband. The headline in the Madison "Capital Times" stated "Fees Take Half of $1 Million Estate."
In response to these articles the defendant, State Bar of Wisconsin, published a pamphlet entitled "Spotlight on the Truth # 1." The pamphlet was the State Bar's response to the articles; it believed the information contained a number of statements or implications which was not accurate nor consonant with the truth. The theme of the pamphlet was that "probate reform" would not solve the problems inherent in the Schaefer estate. It was circulated among members of the legal profession, the legislature, newspapers and "diverse other persons."
Complaints are given a liberal construction in favor of stating a cause of action and are entitled to all favorable inferences which can be drawn from the facts alleged. 1
Initially, the court has the obligation of deciding whether a communication is capable of a defamatory meaning. 2 The question on appeal is whether the circuit court was correct in holding that, as a matter of law, the publication was incapable of harming Mrs. Schaefer's reputation. 3
In Lathan v. Journal Co., 30 Wis.2d 146, 152-53, 140 N.W.2d 417 (1966), 4 we stated:
Mrs. Schaefer commenced this libel action on December 11, 1974. She alleged that the pamphlet was defamatory and contained false statements. Specifically, she alleged that the statements made were false and defamatory and made with actual malice or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity in utter disregard for her rights.
The statements made by the defendant which the plaintiff alleges to be false and defamatory are set forth (together with her interpretation) in paragraph 12 of her complaint, which is as follows:
The State Bar demurred to this complaint and the demurrer was sustained. The court held that the verbiage of the publication "is not such that an ordinary reasonable person could find it defamatory to the plaintiff," and "(t)he plaintiff reads into the entire 'Spotlight' document more than is objectively there."
On ruling on demurrer to a complaint in a libel or slander action as to whether the statements alleged are defamatory, we apply the following test:
Frinzi v. Hanson, 30 Wis.2d 271, 275-76, 140 N.W.2d 259, 261 (1966).
Mrs. Schaefer contends the statement that she was much younger than her husband and of a different religion than he and his family meant that she was an opportunist who married only for pecuniary gain.
If this statement was false, as we must now assume, we conclude it was not defamatory per se. Contra, we cannot say as a matter of law that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kaminske v. Wisconsin Cent. Ltd.
...same). Again, the statement must be evaluated in context. See Frinzi, 30 Wis.2d at 276, 140 N.W.2d 259; Schaefer v. State Bar of Wis., 77 Wis.2d 120, 124, 252 N.W.2d 343 (1977). And a newspaper article must be considered as a whole in determining whether certain language contained therein i......
-
Denny v. Mertz
...of the community. He also argues that the statement was substantially true, which is an absolute defense to a libel action. Schaefer, 77 Wis.2d at 123, 252 N.W.2d 343. In support of this, he cites the dictionary definition of "terminate": "To bring to an ending or cessation in time, sequenc......
-
Reetz v. Advocate Aurora Health, Inc.
...627, 646, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) ("We may decline to review issues inadequately briefed.").8 In Schaefer v. State Bar of Wisconsin , 77 Wis. 2d 120, 125-26, 252 N.W.2d 343 (1977), our supreme court concluded it would "not reach the question of whether the complaint states a cause of......
-
Prahl v. Brosamle
...at 153, 140 N.W.2d 417; Starobin v. Northridge Lakes Development Co., 94 Wis.2d 1, 11, 287 N.W.2d 747 (1980); Schaefer v. State Bar, 77 Wis.2d 120, 123, 252 N.W.2d 343 (1977). "It is the function of the court as a matter of law to determine whether a communication is capable of a defamatory......