 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bartlett v. Bradford Publishing10/17/2005
1 In this case, we consider whether Appellant, Heil Bartlett, a public figure, can satisfy the actual malice standard in a defamation suit by alleging that Appellees, Bradford Publishing, Inc. d/b/a The Bradford Era, John Satterwhite, Marty Wilder and Anne Holliday (collectively "The Bradford Era"), engaged in sub-standard reporting and investigative practices. The trial court found that Bartlett failed to produce evidence that The Bradford Era acted with actual malice and entered summary judgment in its favor. On appeal, Bartlett contends that the trial court erred because it failed to view the evidence in a light most favorable to him as the non-moving party and failed to consider evidence proving that The Bradford Era published the articles with only limited inquiry into the veracity of its story and sources. We hold that although The Bradford Era may have engaged in substandard journalistic practices, substandard journalistic practices do not satisfy the actual malice standard. We conclude, accordingly, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law when it entered summary judgment in favor of The Bradford Era. Consequently, we affirm the Order of the trial court granting summary judgment.
2 This case arose when Bartlett, a police officer, sued The Bradford Era for defamation arising out of two newspaper articles. The Bradford Era published the two articles which form the basis for Bartlett's lawsuit, "Discontent extends into Corydon Township also" and "Corydon Twp. residents call for officer's resignation," which were published on February 3, 2001 and February 13, 2001, respectively. The first article reported on the issues that certain Corydon Township residents were experiencing with Bartlett and the second reported on the discussion at a Township Supervisors' meeting, particularly requests by residents that Bartlett resign.
3 Bartlett alleges that the February 3, 2001, article contains the following defamatory statements:
Officer Heil Bartlett, who also works for the U.S. Forest Service, 'really raises hell with the snowmobilers,' according to Roger Rhoades, owner of The New Willows. (Hereinafter "Raises Hell Statement") [Rhoades] did say that Bartlett has followed his waitresses home and 'gave them a little lip' for being parked at the restaurant for hours. ("Little Lip Statement) 'Bartlett overuses his authority to a great degree,' Rhodes said. 'He is way way over zealous.' ("Overuses Authority Statement")
The man was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest as well as DUI. But he was found innocent of those charges by a jury in McKean County Court. ("Found Innocent Statement")
Barlett allegedly said 'I'm telling you . . . put down the weapon down . . . I'm going to pull my firearm.' ("Firearm Statement")
Brief for Appellant at 8. (corrections made to accurately reflect language used in February 3, 2001 article).
4 Bartlett alleges that the February 13, 2001 article contains the following defamatory statements:
Some of what [Corydon Township residents] said is Bartlett:
-- was following a woman on a snowmobile and, when she slid into a ditch, is said to have tackled her and charged her with alluding police. ("Tackle Statement")
-- reportedly stopped the president of the Ohio Snowmobile Association who has had a camp in Corydon Township for 20 years, and confiscated his snowmobile. ("Confiscated Statement")
-- stopped a man at Tracy Ridge for allegedly crossing the centerline and allegedly poked the man in the nose and cussed at him in front of his 8-year-old child. ("Tracy Ridge Statement") During
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|