This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was the United States Representative for the 15th Congressional District, located in Detroit. P was seeking reelection to a fourth term, and she faced opposition in the August primary election. P was interviewed by Ann Hazard-Hargrove (D), an employee of States News Service (D) in Washington, D.C. The interview was tape-recorded and transcribed. Ds provided the tape and the transcript of the interview to Detroit Free Press, Inc. (D). The Detroit Free Press (D) published a story, based on the interview, concerning P's views on racism. The article stated: All white people, I don't believe, are intolerant. That's why I say I love the individuals, but I hate the race. . . . P issued a news release in response to the story and explained that she had 'summarized [her] thoughts on racism by stating that [she] loved the individual but that '[she] hated the (sins committed by) the white race against people of color throughout history.'' A story circulated on the Associated Press wire service repeating the original quotation and indicating that Ds had verified the quotation and found it to be accurate. After P had lost the primary election for her congressional seat, the Detroit Free Press (D) published a retraction. The Free Press (D) admitted that P had been quoted 'incorrectly,' said that it 'clearly made a mistake,' and indicated that the Free Press (D) would consider disciplinary action against the reporter and editors involved. After the tape and transcript of the interview had been reviewed, the Free Press (D) admitted that P had actually said: All white people, I don't believe, are intolerant. That's why I say, I love the individuals, but I don't like the race. P sued Ds for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional publication of injurious falsehoods, false light invasion of privacy, violation of the consumer protection act, and conspiracy. Ds moved for summary disposition. The court held that 'hate' and 'dislike' had substantially different meanings, especially in this context. The court was satisfied that 'the word 'hate' can have a major effect on the minds of the readers, particularly in the minds of the readers in a jurisdiction such as Detroit.' The court denied Ds' motion. Ds appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.