dallas morning news v tatum summarydallas morning news v tatum summary

You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. The Supreme Court has held that a defamation plaintiff must prove falsity if (i) the plaintiff is a public figure, or (ii) the defendant is a media defendant and the statement involves a matter of public concern. The Tatums timely filed a second notice of appeal.

Accordingly, Gacek and Scholz are not on point. The Tatums timely responded. Immigration Law Paul Tatum was the son of John and Mary Ann Tatum.At seventeen years old, Paul was a smart, popular, and athletic high-school student. Although there is evidence that people in Paul's high school community were discussing his death generally, and that unspecified others in north Dallas were also discussing it before the column was published, there is no evidence that the cause or manner of Paul's death affected anyone other than the Tatums. We disagree and affirm the judgment as to those claims.

WebDallas Morning News, Inc. v. Tatum (Unanimous) Annotate this Case. Nevertheless, the Milkovich Court concluded that calling someone a liar and accusing someone of perjury are both sufficiently verifiable to support a defamation claim. In this libel-by-implication case, a column written by Steve Blow and published by The Dallas Morning News (collectively, Petitioners) was reasonably capable of meaning that John and Mary Ann Tatum acted deceptively and that the accusation of deception was reasonably capable of defaming the Tatums. Id. But because the accusation was an opinion, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Petitioners.The Tatum filed suit alleging libel and libel per se against Petitioners alleging that the column at issue defamed them. The Tatums submitted evidence showing that: One, their motive in stating that Paul died as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident was to express their belief, after investigation, that the best explanation of the underlying cause of Paul's suicide was a brain injury sustained in the auto accident. For the above reasons, we conclude that a person of ordinary intelligence could construe the column to suggest that Paul suffered from mental illness and his parents failed to confront it honestly and timely, perhaps missing a chance to save his life.

(describing general-purpose public figures as those who have achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety as to be public figures for all purposes). We reject the Tatums' second appellate issue. Criminal Law The evidence also showed that their friends, recognizing that the column was about the Tatums, contacted them and told them about the column. Accordingly we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See id. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex.1997). Our decision in Backes v. Misko, No. Additionally, the summary judgment evidence established that the Tatums were out of town the day the column was published. Agriculture Law Appellees argue that a public controversy existed over the official cause of Paul's death. In the ePaper section, youll find: A digital replica of the print edition to give you all the news you need each day Additional ePaper-only bonus content, including extra comics and puzzles 1 of Dallas County, Texas, to: Dana Goodwin. The Tatums argue that there was, focusing specifically on the intent that the word deception implies. In Tatum v. The Dallas Morning News, Inc., No. at 72. Justia Opinion Summary. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the columns accusation of deception was reasonably capable of injuring the Tatums standing in the community but that Blows implicit statement that the Tatum acted deceptively was an opinion and thus not actionable. We affirm the judgment to the extent it orders the Tatums to take nothing on their DTPA claims. Our ePaper and live News feed are now together in one app. New Times, Inc. v. Isaacks, 146 S.W.3d 144, 157 (Tex.2004). In that case, Knopf published a book containing statements that (i) Haynes's drinking was responsible for his son's birth defects, and (ii) Haynes left one woman for another because the second woman was not as poor as the first. PR-17-03954-1, pending in the Probate Court No. Joseph D. Sibley IV, Houston, TX, for appellants. 2014, pet. WebDallas Morning News, Inc. v. Tatum, a case involving a heart-wrenching death and a well-intentioned newspaper column. To the contrary, the column's tone is generally sober, and it purports to be grounded in factual details such as the circumstances of Pillsbury's and Paul's deaths, data about the prevalence of suicide among young people, and Julie Hersh's public efforts to reduce the shame and stigma surrounding mental illness. See Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59, 64 (Tex.2013) (Defamation per quod is defamation that is not actionable per se. The hypothetical person of ordinary intelligence is one who exercises care and prudence, but not omniscience, when evaluating an allegedly defamatory communication. Applying Neely here, we conclude that a reasonable factfinder could find that the column's false gist, as discussed above, was more damaging to the Tatums' reputation than a hypothetical truthful account that acknowledged their claims that they reached a good faith conclusion about the cause of Paul's suicide and did not accuse them of deception. The Tatums also filed copies of a number of emails bearing on the subject. Moreover, a public figure must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Heritage Capital, 436 S.W.3d at 875. Appellees' summary judgment motion argued that (i) they proved the column was true or substantially true and (ii) the Tatums had no evidence of any false statement of fact in the column. And those who did know were already aware of the confusion caused by the obituary. 05-14-01017-CV, 2015 WL 9582903, at *5 (Tex. West successfully ran for mayor of a Utah town. Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 591. Doubtless, the reader can appreciate the extreme grief that overcomes any parent who outlives his or her child. And the gist includes an implication that the Tatums' motive for deceiving readers was to conceal that Paul had suffered from a mental illness that the Tatums failed to confront. Although the column does not expressly make these assertions, roughly the last third of the column discusses the prevalence of suicide (specifically among young people), laments public silence about suicide's frequent cause (mental illness), and concludes, Awareness, frank discussion, timely intervention, treatmentthose are the things that save lives. This opinion should not be construed to hold that the column necessarily defamed the Tatums. Id. Because these privileges are affirmative defenses, see Denton Publ'g Co. v. Boyd, 460 S.W.2d 881, 882, 885 (Tex.1970) (interpreting predecessor statute to 73.002), appellees' summary judgment motion had to conclusively prove their elements to prevail. (to cause to believe the false); Deceive, Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage (3d ed.2011) (to induce someone to believe in a falsehood); Deceive, The New Oxford American Dictionary (2001) (cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage). For this privilege to apply, however, the law requires that the comment at issue purported to be, and was, only a fair, true and impartial report of what was stated at the meeting, regardless of whether the facts under discussion at such meeting were in fact true, unless the report was made with malice. Denton Publ'g Co., 460 S.W.2d at 883. The trial court granted appellees' amended summary judgment motion, and the Tatums timely filed a notice of appeal. 17.50(a)(1)(A)(B). As the Tatums urge, the service they bought was Paul's obituary. Animal / Dog Law In cases not covered by these mandates, Texas has generally made truth an affirmative defense to defamation. Id. We conclude that the Tatums adduced no evidence of this requirement. We agree with the Tatums on all three points. Although the column did not mention the Tatums by name, it quoted from Paul's obituary and it described him and events surrounding his death. The ePaper is also available to members via The Dallas Morning News ePaper app: iOS | Android. Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of Texas opinions delivered to your inbox! That lawsuit was dismissed, and the Tatums appealed. 497 U.S. at 1921, 110 S.Ct. We review a summary judgment de novo. In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 593 (Tex.2015) (orig.proceeding). Subscribe to Justia's View "Dallas Morning News, Inc. v. Tatum" on Justia Law. 73.001 ; Am. In adopting the verifiable as false test in Bentley and Neely, the Texas Supreme Court relied on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. filed). A reasonable juror could conclude that a hypothetically true column would have been less damaging to the Tatums' reputation because it would have mentioned that the Tatums claimed to have written the obituary in a good faith belief in its truth and without an intent to deceive. Thus, if the column's false gistthat the Tatums wrote Paul's obituary with the intent to deceiveis more damaging to the Tatums' reputations than a true statement would have been, then the gist is not substantially true. But recent Texas defamation cases may suggest that the plaintiff always has the burden of proving falsity. This is some evidence of actual malice. Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Whitehill. Appellees, however, do not contend that the Tatums are public officials or general-purpose public figures. In light of Milkovich, Neely, and Bentley, we conclude that the column's gist that the Tatums were deceptive when they wrote Paul's obituary is sufficiently verifiable to be actionable in defamation. See Zerangue v. TSP Newspapers, Inc., 814 F.2d 1066, 107071 (5th Cir.1987) (courts have upheld actual malice findings when the supposed source of the story disclaimed giving the information); see also Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enter., Inc., 209 F.3d 163, 190 (2d Cir.2000) (defendant's self-contradictory testimony about the source of his information supported actual malice finding). We conclude that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on their libel claims. Appellees make a threshold argument that the Tatums must satisfy the standard for libel per se because they did not plead or prove libel per quod or special damages. After West's election, Thomson ran columns asserting that before the election West had opposed a proposal that the town should purchase a municipal power system, but that he changed his position after he was elected. The evidence shows that DMN published Paul's obituary, and the Tatums do not allege that the obituary itself did not conform to their order. See Civ. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Tatums were not limited-purpose public figures. WebEnter your email address and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. If the plaintiff is a public official or a public figure, the required culpability is elevated from negligence to actual malice; that is, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant published the defamatory statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false. Newspapers, Inc. v. Matthews, 161 Tex. WebIn this libel-by-implication case, a column written by Steve Blow and published by The Dallas Morning News (collectively, Petitioners) was reasonably capable of meaning that John and In defamation, a statement is not actionable unless it asserts an objectively verifiable fact rather than an, The court of appeals affirmed as to the deceptive-trade practices claims, but it reversed and remanded the, Full title:John Tatum and Mary Ann Tatum, Appellants v. The Dallas Morning News, Inc, John Tatum and Mary Ann Tatum, Appellants v. The Dallas Morning News, Inc. and Steve Blow, Appellees. denied). 17.46(b)(24); see also Brennan v. Manning, No. See id. Professional Malpractice & Ethics 16m Man shot dead in east Oak Cliff, Dallas police say dallasnews.com Man shot dead in east Oak Cliff, Dallas police say One We agree with the Tatums' second argument and thus do not address their first. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the column was reasonably capable of defamatory meaning and that the column was not a non-actionable opinion. Appellees, however, cite several cases from other jurisdictions to support their argument that the column's gist is an unverifiable opinion. Appellees' contrary argument fails on the first prong we referenced abovethe existence of a public controversy for the Tatums to participate in. See Neely, 418 S.W.3d at 62 ([S]tatements that are not verifiable as false cannot form the basis of a defamation claim.); see also Am. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that they did. at 1001 & n. 1. Thus, Blow had a motive not to learn if there was any explanation for the way the Tatums chose to write the obituary other than the supposed desire to deceive the obituary's readers. WebTatum v. Dallas Morning News, Inc. is a case the Supreme Court of Texas will decide this term, involving two parents who were accused by a columnist at the Dallas Morning News Morning News, Inc. v. Tatum Download PDF Check Treatment Summary concluding that the statement y'all are corrupt, y'all are the criminals, y'all are the ones that oughta be in jail is explicitly defamatory Summary of this case from Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. We are not necessarily convinced that Knopf's first statement about Haynes was an unverifiable opinion. They argue that the column's gist includes an assertion that they falsely ascribed Paul's death to injuries sustained in an automobile accident with the intent to mislead and deceive readers and to cover up his suicide. The distance between the column's discussion of Paul's case and its discussion of mental illness is not so great that a reader of ordinary intelligence could not connect the two, and the closing exhortation for frank discussion, timely intervention, and honesty tends to tie the end of the column back to the two specific illustrations of deception. Saying someone is popular is not inconsistent with the premise that he is mentally ill, nor is asserting that someone committed suicide out of remorse over a car crash inconsistent with the premise that he was mentally ill. Because we conclude that the column is capable of a defamatory meaning, there is at least a fact issue regarding this element, and appellees' traditional and no-evidence grounds attacking that element cannot support the trial court's judgment. Waste Mgmt. Construction Law (a publication qualified for the privilege only if it purported to be, and was, only a fair, true and impartial report of what was stated at a city council meeting). Id. That question remains to be decided by the factfinder. Communications Law In short, there must first be a controversy before it can be a public one. Gaming Law Similarly, Julie Hersh, who was mentioned in the column, testified by deposition that she knew that Blow was referring to Paul Tatum's death when she read the column. In two appellate issues, the Tatums urge that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment dismissing their libel and DTPA claims. The column's headline was Shrouding suicide leaves its danger unaddressed. (Emphasis added). See id. Cf. Civil Procedure Whether a publication is capable of a defamatory meaning is initially a question for the court. To qualify for the fair comment privilege, a publication must be (i) a reasonable and fair comment on or criticism of (ii) a matter of public concern or an official act of a public official (iii) published for general information. 051400951CV, 475 S.W.3d 470, 47981, 48384, 2015 WL 5156908, at *5, *8 (Tex.App.Dallas Aug. 28, 2015, pet. port rowan funeral home

Slander is an oral defamation. Id. 2695. Corporate Compliance WebThe new Dallas Morning News app combines two apps into one. By using the statement In my opinion Mayor Jones is a liar as an example of an actionable statement of fact, the Court took the position that such a statement can be proven false.

13, 2015, pet. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). Intellectual Property In May 2010, Paul was a seventeen-year-old high school student. See id. 9 Over the past four years, the Texas Supreme Court has an annual average of granting about seven motions for rehearing of petitions for

Defamation has two forms: slander and libel. Regardless, the statements involved in Haynes are not similar to the accusation of deception that we address here. About three months later, they filed an amended traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motion. There is thus some evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find negligence's first prongthat appellees should have known of the defamatory statement's falsity, but failed to use reasonable care to ascertain the truth of the column's gist. Heritage Capital, 436 S.W.3d at 875 ; Main v. Royall, 348 S.W.3d 381, 389 (Tex.App.Dallas 2011, no pet.).

at 2427, at *1314. See Deception, Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1981) (the act of deceiving, cheating, hoodwinking, misleading, or deluding); see also Deceive, id. WebThe Dallas Morning News, Inc., and Steve BlowAppeal from 68th Judic John Tatum and Mary Ann Tatum v. The Dallas Morning News, Inc., and Steve BlowAppeal from 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion per curiam) Annotate this Case Download PDF The evidence also included emails by Blow in which he said things like this: Please understand that the vast, vast majority of my readers had no inkling to the identity of the family. We recently cited Lipsky and placed the burden of proving falsity on the plaintiff in a libel case involving the Texas Citizens Participation Act, Civ. Medical Malpractice Id. Even assuming that investigations by the police and the medical examiner are official proceedings, the column does not purport to report about those proceedings. ; see also Civ. A statement does not have to refer to the plaintiff by name, however, if people who know and are acquainted with the plaintiff reasonably understand from reading the statement that it referred to the plaintiff. Main, 348 S.W.3d at 395 ; see also Houseman v. Publicaciones Paso del Norte, S.A., 242 S.W.3d 518, 525 (Tex.App.El Paso 2007, no pet.)

court opinions. A publication's gist is its main point, material part, or essence, as perceived by a reasonable person. Because the evidence in Neely raised a genuine fact issue as to whether a news broadcast was substantially true, the court held that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment based on the fair comment privilege. By statute, a newspaper or other periodical enjoys a privilege against libel actions regarding the publication of certain matters, including (i) a fair, true, and impartial account of an official proceeding to administer the law, Civ. We employ a three-part test to assess whether a plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure: We do not consider the defamatory statement itself in determining whether the plaintiff is a public figure. The Tatums' response relied on the following evidence: One, John Tatum testified by affidavit that his friend Lee Simpson called to inform him about the column the day it was published. Trusts & Estates Rather, we conclude only that it is capable of having that meaning. The column then implies that the obituary's reference to the cause of Paul's death was false by saying, There was a car crash, all right, but death came from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a time of remorse afterward. Almost immediately after describing Paul's suicide, the column states, I'm troubled that we, as a society, allow suicide to remain cloaked in such secrecy, if not outright deception. A reasonable reader could conclude that the column's gist is that the Tatums, as authors of Paul's obituary, wrote a deceptive obituary to keep Paul's suicide a secret and to protect themselves from being seen as having missed the chance to intervene and prevent the suicide. Id. The column purported to support this gist with the factual assertion that Paul committed suicide out of remorse, implicitly calling the obituary's statement that Paul died as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident a lie. In this libel-by-implication case, a column written by Steve Blow and published by The Dallas Morning News (collectively, Petitioners) was reasonably capable of meaning that John and Mary Ann Tatum acted deceptively and that the accusation of deception was reasonably capable of defaming the Tatums. Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 106 S.Ct. Believing that Paul's suicide was caused by a brain injury he sustained in the earlier automobile accident, the Tatums stated in the obituary that Paul died as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The obituary was published on May 21, 2010. Prac. One was an email to Blow in which the author wrote, He [Paul] was a popular and accomplished young man and many people understood to whom you referred.. We resolved that case, however, without deciding the issue because the placement of the burden there would not have affected the outcome.Although Turner contains a passing remark in dicta that a defamation plaintiff must prove that the publication is not privileged, 38 S.W.3d at 115, it does not cite Denton Publishing Co. or hint that it overrules that case's holding that privilege is an affirmative defense, 460 S.W.2d at 885. But the Tatums must prove actual malice to recover exemplary damages if the defamatory statement involved a matter of public concern (as opposed to a public controversy) and appellees are media defendants. Here, the column did not mention Paul or the Tatums by name. Public figure status is a question of law for the court. 73.001. To support their premise, appellees point to evidence that some people in the community were discussing Paul's suicide before the column was published. The actual column, however, can be read to allow and encourage the reader to conclude that the Tatums had no basis for attributing Paul's death to injuries sustained in the earlier car crash and that they wanted to deceive the obituary's readers about the cause of Paul's death, perhaps to conceal their own failure to save his life through an intervention. May 11, 2018) (Don't omit-in-the-obit defamation case). Free Newsletters For the reasons discussed below, we accept the former and reject the latter. Placing the burden of proving truth or falsity is a complex matter. We are not persuaded by appellees' characterization of the column as nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole. Karen Misko took the post to be directed at her and sued Johns for libel. dallas morning news v tatum oyez.

The Tatums wrote an obituary for Paul and paid DMN to publish the obituary in the Dallas Morning News newspaper. In that regard, the statement must point to the plaintiff and to no one else. The summary judgment evidence conflicts on certain points regarding the newspaper's investigation into Paul's death and the manner in which Blow learned about the immediate cause of Paul's death. We are unpersuaded. WebDallas morning news v. Tatum-the Tatum's son shot and killed himself after suffering serious injuries in a car crash -Moore moved for summary judgement, which was

7. 27.001.011. Health Law Reckless disregard means that the publisher entertained serious doubts about the publication's truth or had a high degree of awareness of the publication's probable falsity. Accordingly, the court held that the columns were nonactionable opinions. filed), we noted that "[p]lacing the burden of proving truth or falsity is a complex matter.". If a defamatory statement is true or substantially true, it is not actionable. The Tatums argue that [t]he false gist of the Column is that [they] dishonestly characterized their son's death in the Obituary as a means to shroud his suicide in secrecy. The first question is whether an ordinarily intelligent person could construe the column as conveying that gist. Id. padres scout team 2025; what did william engesser die of; assassin's creed odyssey entrance to the underworld exit. All service and technical issues must go through our Customer Service Center. Prac. Texas Supreme Court 05-14-01017-CV JOHN TATUM AND MARY ANN TATUM, Appellants . V. THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC. AND STEVE BLOW, Appellees The column's gist is not simply that the Tatums omitted the fact that Paul committed suicide from the obituary. It does not mention those proceedings, nor does it report any statements or findings made in the course of those proceedings.

16-0098 Decided: May 11, Austin v. Inet Techs., Inc., 118 S.W.3d 491, 496 (Tex.App.Dallas 2003, no pet.). Appellants John and Mary Ann Tatum sued appellees Steve Blow and The Dallas Morning News (DMN) for libel regarding a column that Blow wrote and DMN published one month after the Tatums' son Paul committed suicide. at 122627. at 21, 110 S.Ct. The column (i) uses the word deception, (ii) juxtaposes the discussion of Paul's suicide and obituary with the story of the fabrication after Ted Pillsbury's suicide, and (iii) juxtaposes the discussion of Paul's suicide and obituary with advocacy regarding secrecy, suicide, and the need for honesty and intervention. We conclude that summary judgment was proper as to the Tatums' DTPA claims but not as to their libel claims. Milkovich lost on summary judgment and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The Tatums' friend Lee Simpson testified by affidavit that he was contacted by Tomaso about Paul's death and that Tomaso did not ask him whether the Tatum family wanted to be contacted. Civil Rights The court did not state the basis for any of its rulings. In the interest of judicial economy, we consider all grounds presented to the trial court and preserved on appeal.