In his second supplemental and amending petition, the plaintiff named American Druggist Insurance Company as a party defendant and the liability insurer of defendant Duplantis. A writ application was filed in this court and it has been consolidated with the newspaper's writ. While this matter was under consideration by the Supreme Court, the Sheriff and his insurer moved for a summary judgment, which was also denied. Thereupon the newspaper applied for writs to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which granted them, together with an order remanding the matter to this court for briefing, argument and an opinion. The motion for summary judgment filed by the newspaper was denied after a hearing, and the newspaper applied for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to this court, which were denied. Duplantis, former Sheriff of Terrebonne Parish and his insurer, American Southern Company. The newspaper moved for a summary judgment the plaintiff then amended his petition to join Ronnie J. Cavalier, filed suit against the Houma Courier Newspaper Corporation, alleging that he was defamed by a news article reporting a criminal arrest at his grocery store. This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Therefore, in view of these two cases, and especially Kidder, I reluctantly author the instant opinion. However, our Supreme Court did not agree with us, reversing at 354 So.2d 1306 (La. 1977) and that of my learned brother and then panel member, Judge Cole, in Roshto v. My basic belief in responsible journalism is evidenced by my opinion in Kidder v.His only connection to the article is the use of his surname in connection with the grocery store. There is no suggestion that the plaintiff was personally involved in the criminal activity or that he was a suspect in the drug deal. The only alleged issue is the inference to be made from the omission of a clarifying statement making the distinction between the location of the arrest and the landmark used to identify that location. From the pleadings and affidavits filed by both the newspaper and Cavalier there is no genuine issue of material fact. Department of Health and Human Resources, 432 So.2d 988 (La.App.
#HOUMA COURIER TRIAL#
The plaintiff in a defamation case must bear the considerable burden of showing that he can produce sufficient evidence at trial to prove with convincing clarity that the defendant made false statements in the news article and that he either knew the statements were false or that he recklessly disregarded the question of their falsity. Summary judgment has been recognized as the proper procedure with which to dispose of defamation cases. The threshold issue in this matter is the proper use of summary judgment to dispose of the preliminary question of whether the newspaper article is defamatory.
0 kommentar(er)
