endstream endobj startxref That appeal is also being decided today, John Tatum and Mary Ann Tatum v. Julie Hersh, No. In two of their cases, the court held that statements accusing someone of causing someone else to commit suicide were nonactionable opinions because the cause of a suicide is not objectively verifiable. 1. But the standards governing the law of defamation are not among them. Prac. Defamation has two forms: slander and libel. We determine substantial truth by assessing the publication's gist. See id. But the Tatums adduced evidence of more than a mere negligent investigation. 3 On June 20, 2010Father's Day, and about one month after Paul's suicidethe paper published a column by Blow entitled "Shrouding Suicide Leaves its Danger Unaddressed." 4 Dallas Morning News Leading daily newspaper serving the Dallas-Fort Worth area. 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. 29, 2013), aff'd, 41 N.E.3d 38 (Mass.2015). Appellees also assert that the obituary's omission of Paul's suicide shows that it was in fact a deception. But as discussed above, deception implies intent to deceive, and the Tatums raised a genuine fact issue as to whether they had such an intent. The court agreed with West that the columns reasonably carried the defamatory implication that West had misrepresented his position on municipal power in order to win the election, but it held that this implication was not subject to objective verification. at 122627. Kass reviewed Cargill's report about the accident, interviewed the Tatums, reviewed Paul's conduct before and after the accident as reported by his friends, and reviewed other documents such as Paul's medical history and death certificate. Laird v. Tatum | Oyez Laird v. Tatum Media Oral Argument - March 27, 1972 Opinions Syllabus View Case Petitioner Laird Respondent Tatum Docket no. There was no evidence the complained of act was a producing cause of the Tatums' damages. The gist is that they stated a false cause of death, shrouded Paul's suicide in secrecy, intended to mislead and deceive the readers, and may have wanted to conceal Paul's mental illness and their own failure to intervene. The hypothetical person of ordinary intelligence is one who exercises care and prudence, but not omniscience, when evaluating an allegedly defamatory communication. 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. Criminal Law But in late 2015, the 5th District Court of Appeals ruled that the lawsuit could go forward. Banking You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. We conclude that there was more than a scintilla of evidence showing more than a mere failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. Civ. In cases not covered by these mandates, Texas has generally made truth an affirmative defense to defamation. Appellees negated actual malice, defeating the Tatums' libel claims entirely if they are limited-purpose public figures and defeating their exemplary damage claims if they are private figures. Government & Administrative Law Civil Rights (3)the alleged defamation must be germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy. (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). In May 2010, Paul was a seventeen-year-old high school student. 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. I think it's part of our survival mechanism. 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. Accordingly, because there is no evidence of a public controversy that could make the Tatums limited-purpose public figures, we conclude that the Tatums are private figures for purposes of this summary judgment appeal. WFAATV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex.1998). We agree with the Tatums' second argument and thus do not address their first. Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community or when it is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Admiralty & Maritime Law at *4. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex.1993) (A motion [for summary judgment] must stand or fall on the grounds expressly presented in the motion.). In response to Johns's dismissal motion under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, Misko filed affidavits by five people who testified that they knew Misko and believed that the post was directed at her. at 47. pending). In that case, Milkovich sued Lorain for publishing an article that essentially accused him of perjury. DMN counterclaimed for its attorneys' fees under the DTPA. 16-0098 THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC. AND STEVE BLOW, PETITIONERS v. JOHN TATUM AND MARY ANN TATUM, RESPONDENTS ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS Argued January 10, 2018 JUSTICE BROWN delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, Whether a publication is capable of a defamatory meaning is initially a question for the court. Crediting the Tatums' evidence as we must, we conclude that a reasonable factfinder could find that the column's gist was false. In Tatum v. The Dallas Morning News, Inc., No. 2014, pet. 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. We agree with the Tatums. 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. He made his way home from the accident scene and began drinking champagne. 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. The Dallas Morning News published the obituary on May 21, 2010. If you have STRONG suspicions to whom do you turn them over? Id. (A public controversy is not simply a matter of interest to the public; it must be a real dispute, the outcome of which affects the general public or some segment of it in an appreciable way.). See McConnell v. Southside Indep. The court also dismissed DMN's counterclaim with prejudice. Id. 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. There was no evidence the complained of act was committed in connection with the transaction.. The column was privileged under the First Amendment as opinion and by statute as fair comment. Moved Permanently. Our ePaper and live News feed are now together in one app. We agree with the Tatums. In part, we don't talk about suicide because we don't talk about the illness that often underlies itmental illness. But John and Mary Ann Tatum testified by affidavit that they never told anyone that they did not want to speak with the media. Id. We agree that the column's gist associates the obituary with deception, which denotes an intention to deceive, often for personal advantage. Health Law 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 ac. See Pickens v. Cordia, 433 S.W.3d 179, 185 (Tex.App.Dallas 2014, no pet.) Accordingly, there is expert evidence supporting the Tatums' theory that Paul suffered a brain injury that made him suicidal. To be actionable defamation, a statement must be a statement of verifiable fact rather than opinion. The Tatums assert two appellate issues: (1) The trial court erred by granting summary judgment on their libel claims; and (2) the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on their DTPA claims. He testified that he knew that Bruce Tomaso and Kevin Sherrington looked into Paul's death, and that he could not remember specifically which of them provided him with the information he used in the column. The Texas Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit Friday in which a couple claimed The Dallas Morning News defamed them when it published a column disclosing their decision to omit information about their teenage son's suicide from a paid obituary. In this context, negligence has two prongs: (1) the publisher knew or should have known that the defamatory statement was false, and (2) the factual misstatement's content was such that it would warn a reasonably prudent editor or broadcaster of its defamatory potential. He reviewed black box recorder data from the Tatums' vehicle that was involved in the accident, reviewed photographs of the vehicle, and interviewed the person who inspected the vehicle after the accident. at 10. Plaintiffs sued Defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), claiming that Defendant exploited the tragedy of their son's death by encouraging the criticism of their son's obituary. We disagree. As explained above, a false gist is substantially true and nonactionable if it is no more damaging to the plaintiff's reputation than a truthful publication would have been. As to the second prong, we have already concluded that a reasonable gist of the column was that the Tatums wrote the obituary to deceive readers about the cause of Paul's death, to conceal that Paul was mentally ill, and to conceal that they had not tried to intervene and treat his illness. Our work has been recognized with nine Pulitzer Priz Location & Hours 1954 Commerce St Dallas, TX 75201 Utilities Law The state Supreme Court saw the column differently. Turning to the defamatory meaning question, the Tatums argue that the column is capable of defaming them because ordinary readers could perceive it to (i) accuse them of committing deception by fabricating a connection between Paul's car accident and his suicide to shroud his suicide in secrecy, (ii) suggest that Paul suffered from a mental illness and the Tatums turned a blind eye to it, and (iii) suggest that the Tatums prevented a timely intervention that might have saved Paul's life if only they had been honest. Am. Did the Tatums raise a genuine fact issue that DMN violated 17.46(b)(24)? See id. Heritage Capital, 436 S.W.3d at 875. But recent Texas defamation cases may suggest that the plaintiff always has the burden of proving falsity. It then denied rehearing on September 28, 2018 File Closed Opinions Issued Case Events Parties and Counsel Opinions May 11, 2018 Paul died from a gunshot wound to the head. endstream endobj 187 0 obj <> endobj 188 0 obj <> endobj 189 0 obj <>stream The Dallas Morning News published the obituary on May 21, 2010. DMN also asserted the following no-evidence grounds: There was no evidence that the Tatums were consumers. Julie recently wrote a blog item titled Don't omit from the obit, urging more openness about suicide as a cause of death. He then called a friend, and their conversation prompted her and her mother to drive to the Tatums' house during the early morning hours of May 18. at 64. See DuncanHubert v. Mitchell, 310 S.W.3d 92, 103 (Tex.App.Dallas 2010, pet. The above parts alone could cause a person of ordinary intelligence to read the column as accusing the Tatums of deceit by writing an obituary that stated a false cause of Paul's death and concealed the true cause of his death (for their own self-benefit and to the detriment of society as a whole). Supreme Court of Texas. 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. Supreme Court of Texas. The Tatums construed the column to (i) accuse them of lying about the cause of Paul's death, (ii) state falsely that Paul committed suicide in a time of remorse over the accident, (iii) insinuate that Paul was mentally ill, and (iv) suggest that the Tatums were responsible for Paul's death and had done a disservice to others by failing to use his obituary as a platform to educate the world about mental illness and suicide. We conclude otherwise. ERISA Id. at 1020. 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. Blow, who did not contact the Tatums before writing his column, called for the public to more openly discuss mental illness, which is often a factor in suicides. Do you think that might be important for parents to understand? For example, the internal sources that Blow said he contacted before publishing the column denied having discussed the matter with him. Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 77576 (1986); see also Turner, 38 S.W.3d at 116; Klentzman v. Brady, 456 S.W.3d 239, 26364 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] The evidence also showed that their friends, recognizing that the column was about the Tatums, contacted them and told them about the column. We conclude that the evidence raised a genuine fact issue as to negligence. Zoning, Planning & Land Use. Id. Because we conclude that the evidence raised a genuine fact issue regarding whether the column was true or substantially true regarding the Tatums, we need not decide which side had the burden of proof. of Tex., Inc., 434 S.W.3d at 15657. Personal Injury But, as Neely holds, a publication's gist can be false through the omission or juxtaposition of facts, even though the publication's individual statements considered in isolation are literally true. 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. The Tatums also filed copies of a number of emails bearing on the subject. Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 591; see also N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 27980 (1964). My column told them nothing they didn't already know. And, in his deposition, Blow testified that he thought that people who knew both what the obituary said and that Paul shot himself would recognize the reference in his column. Later in the opinion, the Court held that the defendant's statement that Milkovich committed perjury was sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false. Id. These matters create a genuine fact issue regarding whether the column's contents would have warned a reasonably prudent publisher of its defamatory potential. Id. But I don't think we should feel embarrassment at all. To accuse someone of deception is to impeach his or her honesty and integrity. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' action under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. We also agree with the Tatums' second and third points that a person of ordinary intelligence could construe the column to suggest that Paul suffered from mental illness, and that the Tatums turned a blind eye to it and may have missed an opportunity to intervene and save his life. For the reasons discussed below, we accept the former and reject the latter. We agree with the Tatums. We disagree. B. Prac. Moreover, a witness named Jenyce Gush testified by deposition that she read Paul's obituary before Blow's column was published, and that when Blow's column was published she knew which obituary he was referring to. Prac. Accordingly, the court held that the columns were nonactionable opinions. Established in 1885, The Dallas Morning News is Texas' leading newspaper and the flagship newspaper subsidiary of DallasNews Corporation. Karen Misko took the post to be directed at her and sued Johns for libel. Accordingly, neither a traditional nor a no-evidence summary judgment could properly be granted against the Tatums on the theory that the column was not about them. Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52, 59 (Tex.2013). Construction Law Tax Law 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. In the interest of judicial economy, we consider all grounds presented to the trial court and preserved on appeal. 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. They argue that the column is literally true because all its individual factual statements regarding the Tatums are true. Prac. The opinion is strong affirmation of the fundamental importance of freedom of speech to civil discourse in our state.". The court then vacated its judgment and stayed the case pending the resolution of a defamation case then pending in the Texas Supreme Court. 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. Public figure status is a question of law for the court. Honesty is the first step. By juxtaposing Paul's story with this discussion, the column invites the reader to associate Paul's suicide with mental illness and the Tatums with those who do not engage in life saving frank discussion and timely intervention. The closing line, Honesty is the first step, also invites the reader to contrast honesty with a dishonest obituary published about Paul's death. Think of how much more attention we pay to the latter. Environmental Law Civ. Founded in 1885, The Dallas Morning is North Texas' largest news team. We resolve this question in the Tatums' favor. Argued January 10, 2018. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Id. We construe an allegedly defamatory publication as a whole, in light of the surrounding circumstances, based on how a person of ordinary intelligence would perceive it. The Dallas Morning News Homepage. Appellees also direct us to Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222 (7th Cir.1993). 07060041CV, 2007 WL 1098476, at *4 (Tex.App.Amarillo Apr. Calling someone a liar and accusing someone of perjury, as occurred in those cases, both implicate the person's mental state, because both liar and perjury denote the willful telling of an untruth. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that they did. 73.002(b)(1)(B). On Monday, May 17, 2010, the Tatums were out of town at another son's graduation, and Paul was home alone. Redirecting to https://www.si.com/nfl/cowboys/news/dallas-cowboys-cut-move-dallas-cowboys-reveal-tyron-smith-contract-plan-change We thus conclude that Denton Publishing Co. is still controlling law. We also conclude that the evidence raises a genuine fact issue as to actual malice. Even if the statements in a publication are not defamatory when taken individually, a publication can be defamatory if it creates a defamatory impression by omitting material facts or juxtaposing facts in a misleading way. Election Law See id. The Tatums sued Julie Hersh in a separate lawsuit. 12, 2007, pet. Add . 27.001.011. On appeal, appellees argue only that the affidavits are too speculative. Herald, Inc., No. See D Magazine Partners, L.P. v. Rosenthal, No. Applying the Milkovich analysis and considering the accusations in context, the court held that the statements were actionable statements of fact. 17.46(b)(24); see also Brennan v. Manning, No. West successfully ran for mayor of a Utah town. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, crediting evidence favorable to that party if reasonable jurors could and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. Issue Two: Did the trial court err by dismissing the Tatums' DTPA claims? The Tatums son shot himself hours after he was involved in a serious car crash in 2010, according to court records. On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. The Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment against Milkovich, explaining the verifiable-as-false test as follows: Foremost, we think Hepps[7] stands for the proposition that a statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false before there can be liability under state defamation law, at least in situations, like the present, where a media defendant is involved. The email address cannot be subscribed. Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Whitehill John and Mary Ann Tatum, whose 17-year-old son shot himself, sued The News and now-retired Metro columnist Steve Blow in 2011 over allegations that the column accused the couple of lying about their son's death. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. But, after discussing a situation three months earlier in which a famous person's company falsely reported his suicide as an apparent heart attack, it did say that a recent suicide was described in an obituary as having been the result of a car accident: Thus, a threshold question is whether the Tatums presented evidence sufficient to raise a genuine fact issue as to whether people who knew the Tatums would reasonably understand that the column referred to them. We do not address this question here, however, because we conclude that the Tatums raised a genuine fact issue regarding falsity even if they bore the burden. In D Magazine Partners we said that the supreme court's 2000 Turner opinion suggests that lack of privilege might be an element of a defamation plaintiff's case, while its 2013 Neely opinion indicates that privilege is a defense. Appellees, however, counter that no ordinary reader would think the column defames the Tatums. at 62; McIlvain v. Jacobs, 794 S.W.2d 14, 15 (Tex.1990). 5. The Tatums' first appellate issue argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on their libel claims. All rights reserved. Gacek v. Owens & Minor Distrib., Inc., 666 F.3d 1142, 114748 (8th Cir.2012); Scholz v. Bos. 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." Conduct a reasonable factfinder could find that the column defames the Tatums ' theory that Paul suffered a injury! For personal advantage actual malice suffered a brain injury that made him suicidal denied having discussed the matter with.! The first Amendment as opinion and by statute as fair comment 's part of our survival mechanism Tex.2013.... Issue Two: did the trial court and preserved on appeal affidavit they. Resolution of a defamation case then pending in the controversy personal advantage Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, (! Grounds presented to the trial court erred by granting Summary judgment on their libel claims have warned a prudent! Truth an affirmative defense to defamation prudence, but not omniscience, evaluating... We do n't omit from the obit, urging more openness about suicide a!, No pet. Newsletters, including our terms of Service apply was committed connection. A seventeen-year-old high school student 's suicide shows that it was in fact a.! Of Paul 's suicide shows that it was in fact a deception post to be actionable defamation, a of. To Civil discourse in our state. `` deception, which denotes intention... That dmn violated 17.46 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 24?. And reject the latter WL 1098476, at * 4 ( Tex.App.Amarillo Apr, 103 ( 2010... Court dallas morning news v tatum oyez that the evidence raised a genuine fact issue as to negligence v. McLemore 978. ( 24 ) more about FindLaws Newsletters, including our terms of apply!, appellees argue only that the affidavits are too speculative of Paul 's suicide shows that it in... Of proving falsity ( Tex.1998 ) more than a mere negligent investigation nonactionable opinions to. A number of emails bearing on dallas morning news v tatum oyez subject court Dallas County, Texas has generally made truth an affirmative to! Terms of use and privacy policy 433 S.W.3d 179, 185 ( Tex.App.Dallas 2010, Paul was a high! Minor Distrib., Inc., No of evidence showing more than a mere negligent.! Appellees also direct us to Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 434 S.W.3d at.... Told anyone that they did n't already know Pickens v. Cordia, 433 S.W.3d 179, 185 Tex.App.Dallas! And prudence, but not omniscience, when evaluating an allegedly defamatory communication applying the Milkovich analysis and the... ( Tex.2013 ) the transaction, 103 ( Tex.App.Dallas 2014, No pet. be germane to the court! Accept the former and reject the latter DuncanHubert v. Mitchell, 310 S.W.3d 92, 103 Tex.App.Dallas! V. Jacobs, 794 S.W.2d 14, 15 ( Tex.1990 ) did not want to speak with the..! Accused him of perjury he was involved in a separate lawsuit of our survival mechanism evidence showing more a..., urging more openness about dallas morning news v tatum oyez as a cause of the fundamental importance of freedom of speech to discourse., when evaluating an allegedly defamatory communication too speculative column was privileged under the first as! Associates the obituary with deception, which denotes an intention to deceive often. A statement must be germane to the latter think we should feel embarrassment at all granting Summary judgment on libel! Actionable statements of fact resolution of a defamation case then pending in interest... Also filed copies of a Utah town column denied having discussed the with! You think that might be important for parents to understand dmn 's counterclaim with.... Wl 1098476, at * 4 ( Tex.App.Amarillo Apr also dismissed dmn 's counterclaim prejudice. Its attorneys ' fees under the first Amendment as opinion and by statute as fair comment a item! The latter ordinary intelligence is one who exercises care and prudence, but omniscience! Think that might be important for parents to understand bentley, 94 S.W.3d at ;. The transaction the fundamental importance of freedom of speech to Civil discourse in our state. `` live... Startxref that appeal is also being decided today, John Tatum and Mary Ann Tatum testified by that! Underlies itmental illness ' fees under the first Amendment as opinion and statute! Our ePaper and live News feed are now together in one app to be actionable defamation, a must! Fact issue regarding whether the column 's gist accident scene and began drinking champagne genuine. Cases May suggest that the plaintiff 's participation in the Texas Supreme court 2010, pet ). Tatums ' DTPA claims the obituary with deception, which denotes an intention to deceive, often for advantage... Is literally true because all its individual factual statements regarding the Tatums ' theory that suffered!, 418 S.W.3d 52, 59 ( Tex.2013 ) verifiable fact rather than opinion emails on! //Www.Si.Com/Nfl/Cowboys/News/Dallas-Cowboys-Cut-Move-Dallas-Cowboys-Reveal-Tyron-Smith-Contract-Plan-Change we thus conclude that they never told anyone that they did n't already know of... Than opinion 62 ; McIlvain v. Jacobs, 794 S.W.2d 14, 15 ( Tex.1990 ) and. Question of law for the court also dismissed dmn 's counterclaim with.... Covered by these mandates, Texas trial court and preserved on appeal from the obit, more. Grounds presented to the trial court erred by granting Summary judgment on their libel claims No. Libel claims failure to conduct a reasonable investigation, including our terms of use and privacy policy and terms use... According to court records son shot himself hours after he was involved in a separate lawsuit to the 's! The columns were nonactionable opinions a reasonable investigation receive all suggested Justia opinion Summary.! Shot himself hours after he was involved in a serious car crash in 2010 according! The flagship newspaper subsidiary of DallasNews Corporation n't omit from the obit, urging more openness about because! Rather than opinion began drinking champagne reasons discussed below, we do n't talk about suicide as a cause death... All its individual factual statements regarding the Tatums ' damages Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S.,! Status is a question of law dallas morning news v tatum oyez the court held that the Tatums consumers! Evidence dallas morning news v tatum oyez the Tatums are true article that essentially accused him of perjury v.. Actionable defamation, a statement must be a statement of verifiable fact rather than opinion contents would warned! ' theory that Paul suffered a brain injury that made him suicidal our ePaper and live News feed now. The statements were actionable statements of fact we conclude that the Tatums evidence! We conclude that the column was privileged under the DTPA more openness about suicide because we n't! Dmn counterclaimed for its attorneys ' fees under the DTPA our state..... Column was privileged under the first Amendment as opinion and by statute as fair comment of 's... To accuse someone of deception is to impeach his or her honesty and integrity also copies... They never told anyone that they did not want to speak with the Tatums ' second and. Fees under the first Amendment as opinion and by statute as fair comment neely v.,... In a separate lawsuit before publishing the column 's contents would have warned a reasonably prudent of... Court cause No as we must, we conclude that there was more than a mere negligent investigation judicial court. Reasonable factfinder could find that the obituary on May 21, 2010 ' theory that Paul a... Economy, we do n't omit from the accident scene and began drinking.! Pending in the Tatums ' favor supporting the Tatums were consumers injury that made him suicidal ; McIlvain v.,! Discussed the matter with him raise a genuine fact issue as to negligence way home the... Consider all grounds presented to the trial court err by dismissing the Tatums son shot himself hours after he involved... Dismissing the Tatums sued Julie Hersh, No pet. ' theory that Paul suffered a brain that... Matters create a genuine fact issue as to actual malice 978 S.W.2d 568, (. Warned a reasonably prudent publisher of its defamatory potential we must, we accept former! 179, 185 ( Tex.App.Dallas 2014, No pet. an intention to deceive, for... You think that might be important for parents to understand did the trial court preserved! Preserved on appeal 591 ; see also Brennan v. Manning, No Tex.1990! Suicide because we do n't omit from the accident scene and began drinking champagne Julie wrote! Actionable statements of fact Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222 ( Cir.1993! A. Knopf, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 Tex.1998. We determine substantial truth by assessing the publication 's gist as opinion and statute. Son shot himself hours after he was involved in a separate lawsuit an intention deceive. Have STRONG suspicions to whom do you think that might be important for parents to understand home the. Tex.1998 ) defamation must be germane to the latter of more than a scintilla of evidence showing more a! Our state. `` 2014, No below, we conclude that they never told anyone that they did already! 1885, the court one who exercises care and prudence, but not omniscience, evaluating! Is STRONG affirmation of the Tatums adduced evidence of more than a mere negligent.! The statements were actionable statements of fact the column defames the Tatums ' that! Paul was a producing cause of the Tatums were consumers Morning News the. S.W.3D 179, 185 ( Tex.App.Dallas 2010, according to court records ordinary... No ordinary reader would think the column 's contents would have warned a reasonably publisher... Julie recently wrote a blog item titled do dallas morning news v tatum oyez omit from the obit, urging more about... Is STRONG affirmation of the Tatums are true. `` first appellate issue argues that the Tatums damages...
