Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P was the wrestling coach at Maple Heights High School. His team was involved in an altercation at a home wrestling match with a team from Mentor High School. The Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) held a hearing at which P and the Superintendent of Maple Heights Public Schools, testified. OHSAA placed the Maple Heights team on probation for a year and declared the team ineligible for the 1975 state tournament. OHSAA also censored P for his actions during the altercation. Several parents and wrestlers sued OHSAA in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio, seeking a restraining order against OHSAA's ruling on the grounds that they had been denied due process in the OHSAA proceeding. P testified in that proceeding. The court overturned OHSAA's probation and ineligibility orders on due process grounds. An article was published by D authored by Diadiun. The column bore the heading 'Maple beat the law with the `big lie,'' beneath which appeared Diadiun's photograph and the words 'TD Says.' The carryover page headline announced '. . . Diadiun says Maple told a lie.' The column contained the following passages: '`It is simply this: If you get in a jam, lie your way out. '`If you're successful enough, and powerful enough, and can sound sincere enough, you stand an excellent chance of making the lie stand up, regardless of what really happened. '`Anyone who attended the meet, whether he be from Maple Heights, Mentor, or impartial observer, knows in his heart that Milkovich and Scott lied at the hearing after each having given his solemn oath, to tell the truth. P sued in defamation alleging that Ds accused P of perjury. Ds were granted a directed verdict on the grounds that the evidence failed to establish the article was published with 'actual malice' as required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Appellate District reversed and remanded, holding that there was sufficient evidence of actual malice to go to the jury. On remand and applying Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the trial court granted summary judgment to Ds on the grounds that the article was an opinion protected from a libel action by 'constitutional law,' and alternatively, as a public figure, P had failed to make out a prima facie case of actual malice. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed both determinations. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded. The court first decided that petitioner was neither a public figure nor a public official under the relevant law. The court then found that 'the statements in issue are factual assertions as a matter of law, and are not constitutionally protected as the opinions of the writer. Two years after its P decision, in considering Scott's appeal on a separate suit, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed its position on Diadiun's article, concluding that the column was 'constitutionally protected opinion.' Consequently, the court upheld a lower court's grant of summary judgment against Scott. The Ohio Court of Appeals then affirmed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ds, concluding that 'it has been decided, as a matter of law, that the article in question was constitutionally protected opinion.' The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed petitioner's ensuing appeal for want of a substantial constitutional question. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co