# NO. 12-07-00139-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEXA S

PALESTINE HERA LD-PRESS C O., NEWSPAPE

R HOLDINGS, INC., AND § APPEAL F ROM THE 2ND SCO TT TY LER , APPELLANTS V. § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF MARK ZI MME R, APP ELL EE § CHER OK EE CO UNTY

, T EXAS OPINION Pale sti neHerald- Pr e ss C o. , N e ws Paper H old ing s, In c , and S cot t T yler ( c oll e c tiv e ly “Appe llants”) ap p ea l t h e trial c ourt’s denial of their tra ditional and no evidenc e motions for
su mma ryjud gme nt i n f

a vo r o f App e lle eMa

rk Zi mmer. Ap pe llants raise tw e lveiss ue s o n a pp e a l. We rever se and render

. B ACKG ROUND 

## Zimmer is the defe nsive coordinator an d as s i stant coac h for the Jacksonville High School football team of Jacksonville, Texa s. Jacksonville High School and Pales t i n e Hi g h School of Pale sti ne , Te xa s ar e pu bli c hig h s c ho ols in n e ighbo ri ng c ou nti e s andhavea lon gs tand ing fo otb a ll rivalry. On September

22, 2006, the two teams c ompeted against one another in an annual rivalry game he ld in Palestine, Texas. Thegame wa s hard f ought. As the last minute of game play began to elapse, the Jac ksonville team led by only two points. The Palestine team dr ove the ball into t he Jacksonville team’s territory and set up for a field goal attempt that would assure their vic tory. But the Jac ksonville team doused its opponent’s hopes whe n it blocked the kick.Zi mm er ’ s ac t i ons ge r mane t o t hi s appeal l as t ed approxi mat el y s eve n s econds an d wer e c apt ur ed by vi deo 1
cam eras t hat were record i ng t he gam e. T hi s vi d eo evi d ence wa s p art of t he summ ary judgm ent record and t he reco rd o n a p p e a l. 

## 2 Jacksonville High School’s players, fans, and coach es er upted with exciteme nt. The
e x u b e r an c e Z immer h a d e x h ib it e d d u rin g th e g ame r e a c h e d a c r e s c e n d o a s ti me e x p ire d

. As the Jacksonville player s and coaches c elebr ated, Zimmer r an onto the fie ld with his right arm overhead. Zi mmer l e apt i nto on eof

his players ’ a

rm s n e ar themid dle of

thefi e ld b e tw e e n th etw e ntyandthi rty yard lines. As theplayer re lease d Zimmer from the e mbrac e, Zimmer, who w as still in t he immediate vicinity of the ce lebrating Jacksonville player s, turned generally toward the Palestine team’s sideline a s he pumped his right fist in the air once. Zimmer then raised both fists to the side of his he a d, and abr

up tly thr us t his arm s do wn wa

rd to his hip s thre e tim e s wh ilesli gh tly be nd ing his knees and sidestepping toward thethirty yard line. Zimmer was yelling w ith e levated e xcitement
a s h emotion e d. Zi mmer the n tu rn e d to wa rdhis pla yers , o ne of who m imm e diate ly b ump e d h is shoulder pad into Zimmer’ s shoulder, causing Zimmer, who was still spirite d l y s h o u t i n g, to turn
on c ea gain t ow ardthePale sti nesid e lin e brie fl y be fo re he walke d tow ardtheJa c ks on vil lesid e lin e s,
re lativ e ly s ub du e d, wi th thePale sti neplayers . 1 

## Among thos e wh o o b s erve d Zimmer’s conduc t was Scott Tyler, a sports editor for the Pales t i n e Her ald-Press ne wspaper. Tyler was standing on the Palestine te am’s sideline ne ar the thirty-five ya

rd line at the time. There after, Tyler wrote an a rticle that a

ppeared in the September

24, 2006 edition of the Palestine Herald in “From the Cheap S eats,” Tyler’ s wee kly editorial column. Ty le r’ s a rtic lee nti tle d “ Spo rt smans hip c ome s f ir st” re a ds a s f

oll ow s:

In h i g h s ch o o l foo t b al l , w i n n i n g an d l o si n g i s n o t al w ay s t h e m o st i m p o rt an t fact o r. O K , be f or e I ge t r un out of t ow n for t hats t at em ent , t her e i s s om e t r ut h, s o j us t hol d on a nd l i s t en.
A t t he hi gh s chool l eve l , w hi l e w i nni ng foot bal l gam es i s ni ce , w hen i t c om es dow n t o t he bot t om l i ne, t he m os t i m p o rt an t thi n g t hatne eds t o c om e out of a hi gh s chool foot bal l ga m e i s not w i nni ng but s por t s m ans hi p.
M ay b e I h av e b een fort u n at e w i t h co v eri n g Pales t i n e for fou r years. St art i n g w i t h J eff H a rr e ll a n d n o w w ith G le n T u n sta ll, th e P a le stin e c o a c h e s h a v e striv e d to m a k e su re th e y a n d th e ir pl ayer s dem on s t r at e t he bes t s po r t s m ans hi p po s s i bl e.
W i n or l os e, Pa l es t i ne has s how n w hats por t s m ans hi p m ea ns . Y es , I ha ve s ee n t he Pa l es t i ne

## 3 p l ay ers a n d c o ac h es ce l eb rate w i t h a c l o se v i cto ry , b u t w h at e l se i s e x p ec t ed . A n d ev en w i t h l o sses, t h e y s t i l l k e e p t h e i r h e a d s u p w h i l e s h a k i n g h a n d s w i t h t h e o t h e r t e a m.
Las t w ee k, w hen Pa l es t i ne w as at H ende r s on, one of t he c hai n gang m em ber s for H ende r s on m ad e a co m m en t o f h o w p l ea san t t h e P alesti n e sid eli n e w as. Ju st an o t h er ex am p l e o f t h e W i l d ca t s’ good s por t s m ans hi p. A n d be fore I get t h e p h o n e cal l s an d e -m ai l s t el l i n g m e t h at P al est i n e run s u p t h e score, do n ’t eve n t r y. W hen Pa l es t i ne ge t s a bi g l ea d, al l t he s ec ond- a nd t hi r d- s t r i ng pl aye r s a r e i n t he gam e, but w h a t d o y o u e x p e c t t h e y d o , j u st sit o n th e b a ll?
H ow ever , t here have be e n i ns t a nc e s t hr ou gh t he ye ar s w here t he s po r t s m ans hi p dem on s t r at ed on t he Pal es t i ne s i del i ne has not been du pl i cat ed on t he ot her s i del i ne.
I have hear d and s een m any t hi ng s ov er f r om acr oss t he s i del i nes , i ncl ud i ng bad l angu age, i n ap p rop ri at e g est u res an d na m e cal l i n g t o w a rd bo t h t h ei r ow n players and t h e o p p o si n g t eam ’s p l ay ers.
H o w e v e r, w h a t I sa w F rid a y n ig h t w a s th e w o rs e [sic ] y e t.

I n a gr ea t ga m e bet w ee n Pa l es t i ne and J ac ks onvi l l e at W i l dca t St adi um , t hat w entt o t he end, t he I ndi ans pr eva i l ed w i t h a 19–17 c om eba ck w i n.
W hen Pa l es t i ne m i s s ed a l ong fi el d goa l a t t em pt a t t he e nd of t he ga m e, t her e w as c el ebr at i on on t he J acks on vi l l e s i del i ne, w hi ch i s und er s t andab l e.
Pa l es t i ne had bea t en J ac ks onvi l l e t he yea r be f or e and t he I ndi ans ha d t o c om e bac k i n t he f our t h qua r t er t o w i n Fr i day ni ght

. So go a hea d, j um p up a nd dow n, e nj oy t he w i n.
H o w e v e r[ ,] w h ile th e Ja c k so n v ill e p la y e rs a n d c o a c h e s c e le b ra te d th e w in , t h e Ja c k so n v ill e defe ns i ve c oo r di na t or , M a r k Zi m m e r , s t oo d a t m i d- fi e l d, f a c i ng t he P a l e s t i ne s i de l i ne a nd s t a r t ed m ak i n g an o b sce n e g estu re w i t h h i s arm s.

Thi s i s A BSO LU TE LY u n cal l ed for ! A ft er a ha r d- f ought c ont es t by bot h t ea m s for 48 m i nu t es , t here i s no pl ace f or t hi s i n t he gam e, and for a c oach t o do t hi s i s beyo nd any w ords I ca n t h i n k of.
A ft er w hat I w i t nes s ed, I ha ve no r es pec t for J ac ks onvi l l e and it is be ca us e of one c oac h. H e not onl y put a bl ac k m ar k on t he J ac ks onvi l l e f oot bal l t ea m [ , ] but al s o J ac ks onvi l l e H i gh Sc hool and t he ci t y of J acks on vi l l e.
T h is c o a c h s h o u ld f e e l e m b a rr a sse d a n d a sh a m e d o f w h a t h e d id a n d h o w h e a c te d . T h is is no t ac cept abl e behavi or by an yo ne on t he f oo t bal l fi el d and for i t t o be a coach m akes i t even w ors e. Zi m m er ow es t he Pa l es t i ne t ea m , t he W i l dca t f ans [ , ] a nd t he c i t y of Pa l es t i ne an apol ogy for h i s ac t i o n s.

T h ere i s n o p l ac e fo r t h i s i n sp o rts

. 

## W ith in we e ks of the pu bli c atio n of Ty le r’ s artic le , Zi mmer fi le d su it fo r d e famatio n a gains t Appellants. On Janua

ry 22, 2006, Appe llant s fi l ed b o t h traditional and no e videncemotions forSee T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C O D E A NN
. § 51

. 0 1 4 (a)( 6 ) ( V ernon S up p . 20 0 7 ). 2

See T EX
. R. C IV
. P

. 16 6 a(c). 3 

## 4 summ ary judgment, to which Zimmer responde d. On April 3, 2007, the trial c ourt denied Appellants’ motions for summary judgment. This interlocutory appeal followed. 2



## S TANDA RD OF 

## R E VI E W AND 

## G OVE RNI NG 

## L AW 

## The standa

rd for revie wing summary judgment is the s ame for def amation ca ses as for

other types of ca ses. See Simm ons v . W ar e , 9 20 S.W .2 d 4 38 , 4 43 (T e x. Ap p. –A mari llo 19 96 , n o w ri t) (citing Carr v. Brash er , 776 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex.1989) ). In revi ew i n g a traditional motion for summary judgment, we must apply the standa rds established in Ni

xo n v . M

r. Pr op e rty 3 

## Management Co. , 6 90 S.W .2 d 5 46 , 5 48 –4 9 ( Te x. 19 85 ), wh ic h a rea s f oll ow s:
(1) T h e m o v an t for sum m ary j u d g m en t h as t h e b u rden o f sho w i n g t h at t h ere i s n o g en u i n e i ssu e o f m aterial fac t an d t h at i t i s en t i t l ed t o j u d g m en t as a ma t t e r o f

l a w. ( 2) I n de ci di ng w het her t her e i s a di s put ed m at er i al f ac t i s s ue pr ec l udi ng s um m ar y j ud gm ent , evi dence f avorabl e t o t he [ no nm ov ant ] w i l l be t aken as t r ue. ( 3) Ever y r ea s onabl e i nfer enc e m us t be i ndul ged i n f avor of t he [ nonm ovant ] a nd a ny d o u b t s res o l v ed i n i t s favo r.


## Nixon , 6 90 S.W .2 d at 54 8–49 ; see May v. Nac ogdoches Mem’l Hosp. , 61 S.W.3d 623, 628 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2001, no pe t.). A de fe nd ant mov ing fo r summa ry jud gme nt m

us t e ith e r n e g ate at le a st
one esse ntial element of the nonmovant’s ca use of a ction, or prove all essential ele ments of an aff irmative def

ense. See Randal

l’s Food Markets, Inc. v. J o h n s on , 8 9 1 S. W. 2 d

6 4 0 , 6 4 4 ( T e x. 1995). We arenot require d to asce rtain t h e cr ed i b i l i ty of af fiants or to dete rmine the we ight of
ev i d en ce i nth e a ff

i d av i t s , d ep o s i t i o n s , ex h i b i t s an d o th er s umm ary j u dgment proof. See Gulbenkian
v . P enn , 151 Tex. 412, 252 S.W.2d 929, 932 (1952). The only question is whether or

not an issue of material fac t is presented. SeeT EX


## . R. C IV


## . P. 166a (c)

. Once the movant has e stablished a right to summary

judgme nt, t h e n o n m o v ant has the bur den to re spond to the motion for summary judgme nt and present t o the trial court any issues that would prec lude summary judgme nt. See, e .g., City of Hou sto n v

. Cl e ar Creek Basin A utho rit

y , 589 S.W .2d 671, 678–79 (Tex. 1979). Summary

## 5

jud gme nt s ho uld

be a ff ir me d o n a pp e a l if any of thegro un ds pr e se nte d in the mot ion areme ri toriou s. SeeCarr v. Brash er , 776 S.W .2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1989). Fur thermore , a f

ter a d e q u a tetimef o r dis c o v e r y , a p a r ty w it hout presentingsummary

judgme nt evidenc e may

also move for

summary judgme nt on the ground th at t hereis no evidence of one or
more e ssential elements of a claim or de fense on which an adver se party would have the burden of proof at trial. T EX


## . R. C IV


## . P. 166a(i). The motion mus t state the ele ments as to which there is no evidenc e. Id. Once a no evide nce motion has be en filed in a ccordancewith Rule 166a(i), the burden shifts to the nonmovant to bring forth evidenc e that raises a fa ct issue on the cha lleng ed evide nce. See Macias v. Fiesta Mart, In c. , 988 S.W .2d 316, 316–17 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1999,
no pet.). A no evidenc e mot ion is properly grante d if the nonmovant fails to bring for th more than a scintilla of probative evidenc e to raise a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as to an esse ntial element
o f th e n o nmo v ant’ s c la im o n wh ic h th e n o nmo v ant w o u ld h av e th e b ur d e n o f p r o o f at trial. See Merrell Dow Pharm s., Inc. v. Havner , 953 S.W .2d 706, 711 (Tex.1997). I f the evide nce suppor ting
a f i n d i n g r i s e s t o a l e v e l th at w o u l d e n a b l e r e a s o n a

b l e , f a i r m i n d e d p e r s o n s t o dif fe r i n th e ir conclusions, then more than a sc intill a of e vidence exis ts. See Havner , 95 3 S.W. 2d at 711 . L e ss than a sc intill a of e vidence exis ts when the evidenc e is so weak as to do no more than c reate a mer e surmise or s u s p i ci o n o f a f act, a nd the leg al ef

fec t is that there is no evidenc e. See Kin dred v. Con/ Chem , Inc. , 650 S.W .2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983). To prove a

cause of ac tion for def

amation, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defe ndant published a statement of fac t, ( 2) the stateme nt was def amatory , (3) the statement was f alse, (4) the defe ndant ac ted neg lige ntly in publishi ngthe fa lse and de famatory statement, and (5) the pla intiff suffe red damag es as a result. See Brown v. Swett & Crawford of Tex., Inc. , 178 S.W .3d 373, 382 (T ex . Ap p . –Ho u s t o n[ 1 Di s t

. ] 2 0 0 5 , n o p et

. ) ( ci t i n g WFAA -T V , I nc . v . M c Lemore , 978 S.W .2d 568, 57 1 ( Te x. 19 98 )) ; see also T EX


## . C IV


## . P R AC


## . & REM


## . C ODE 

## ANN 

## . § 73.001 (Ve rnon 2005).

V ERIF I A BLE 

## S TA TE M EN T O F 

## F ACT 

## In their sec ond issue, Appellants argue that the tria l court improperly denied th e ir n o e v ide nce motion for summary

judgme nt beca

use there was no evidenc e that the state ments in Tyler’s e ditorial of wh ic h Z imm e r c omp la ine d w e reob je c tiv e ly ve ri fi a blestate me nts of

fa c t.

## 6

In Bentley v. Bunton , 94 S.W .3d 561, 579 (Tex. 2002) , the Texas Supre me Court adopted the test used by

the U.S. Supreme Court in Milkovich v . Lorain Jou rnal C

o. , 4 97 U. S. 1 , 1 10 S. Ct

. 2695, 111 L . Ed. 2d 1 (1990), for determining whether a statement i s actionable in defa mation. For
a s t at em ent t o be ac tionable in defa mation, it mus t expressly or impliedly

asser t fac ts that are objectively

verifia ble. Milkovich , 4 97 U. S.at 19 , 1 10 S. Ct . at 270 6; Bentley , 94 S.W .3d at 580. This test supplants a former analy sis that emphasized a distinction betwee n statements of fa ct and statements of opinion. See Bentley , 94 S.W .3d at 580–81. In Milkovich , the Supreme Court stated that the Fir st Amendment does not mandate a n inquiry into whether a

statement is opinion or fac t beca use the e x isting constitutional doctrine adequate ly secur es freedom of expression without the need to c reate an artificia l dic hotomy betwee n the two. See Milkovich , 497 U. S. at 19 , 1 10 S. Ct

. at 2706. Under

the test set out in Milkovich and adopte d in Bentley , an opinion, like any o th er statement, ca

n be ac tionable in defa

matio n i f it ex pressly

or impliedly

asser ts facts that c an be objectively

verifie d. See Milkovich , 49 7 U. S. at 22 , 11 0 S. Ct . at 27 07 ; Bentley , 94 S.W .3d at 580. Fo r ex amp l e, wh en a sp eak er s ay s , “In my o p i n i o n , J o n es i s a li ar , ” he i mp l i e s kn o wl ed ge of fa cts that lead to the conclusion that J ones told a n untruth. See Milkovich , 497 U.S. at 18, 110 S. Ct . at 27 05–0 6. W hen thesp e ake r s tate s th e fa c ts u po n whic h h e ba se s h is o pin ion , a nd tho se fac ts are either incorre ct or incomplete, or his assessment of them is err oneous, the stateme nt may still imply

a fa lse asser

tion of fac t. Id. , 4 9 7 U. S

. at 1 8

– 1 9 , 1 1 0 S

. C t

. at 2 7 0 6

. S i mp l y co u ch i n g a statement in te rms of opinion does not dispel such an implication. Id. 497 U.S. at 19, 110 S. Ct . at 2706. Whether a publication is an actionable state ment of fa ct is a question of law

. See Bentley , 94 S.W .3d at 580. To make thi s d et erm i n ation, we must look at the entire context in which the statement wa s made. Id. at 581. In his petition, Zimmer a l leg ed that Tyler’s state ments in the article w eredefa matory as fo llo ws :

D e fen d a n t T yle r l ib e ls P la intiff b y p rin ting false sta te m e n ts. S p e c ifi c a lly, he c a lls P la intiff out by na me. H e c l aim s t hat P l ai nt i f f “ s t oo d at mi df

i el d, f aci ng t he P al es t i ne s i del i ne and s t ar t ed m aki ng an ob scene ge stu re wi t h hi s arm s. ” T y l er al l eges t hat what he s aw F ri d ay ni ght was t he “wo rse” [si c] b eh av i o r he ha s seen b y a f o o t b all co ac h. H e states t ha t P l ainti f f ’ s co nd uc t wa s wo rse t han “ b ad l anguage, i nap p rop ri at e gest ures [, ] a n d n a m e cal l i ng t o ward

. . . play ers and t he o p p o si ng te a m ’s p la ye rs .” T yle r th e n p u b lica lly re p rim a n d s P la intiff a n d sta te s tha t P la in ti ff’s c o n d u c t i s

## 7 “A B S O L U T E L Y un c a ll e d f o r !” T yle r sa ys tha t P la intiff p u t a “b la c k m a rk ” o n the J a c k so n v ill e fo o tb a ll te a m , t h e J a c k so n v ill e H igh S c h o o l, a n d th e c ity o f J a c k so n v ill e . T yle r a sse rts th a t P la intiff “sh o u ld fee l em b a rr a sse d a n d a sh a m e d o f wh a t he d id a n d ho w he a c te d .” H e sta te s tha t P la intiff “o w e s the P a le stine tea m , t h e W ild c a t f a n s[ ,] a n d the c ity o f P a le stine a n a p o lo g y fo r h is a c tio n s.” T yle r th e n e n d s the a rtic le b y sa ying , “T h e re is no p la c e fo r th is in sp o rts.”


## We have r eviewe d the statements in the ar ticle of whic h Z immer complains in the con t ex t o f the entirety of Tyler’s a

rticle. We agree with Appellants’ asser tion that the a

rticle g ener ally

conce rns theiss ue of

sp or tsm ans hip and

c on c lud e that no ne of

Tyle r’ s st atemen ts , w ithon e po ssible exception, are remotely

capa ble of be ing obje ctively

verifie d. Z immer’s action, which Tyler describes in his article as hi s havingmade a n “obsce ne g esture with his arms,” is the express impetus underlying T yler’s writing the article . All of the re maining statements about which Z immer complains amount to no more than attempts by Tyler t o quantify the gravity

of Z immer’s beha

vior. That such a

n act is the wor st thing Tyler has observe d, even when citinge xamp le s o f

o th e r b a d b e h av io r h e h a s o b s e r

v e d , is , n o n e th e le s s , ane nti r e ly s u b jective statement. So, too, are T yler’s c omments that Z immer’s conduct was “uncalled for,” “has no place in sports,” or put a “black mar k” on Jacksonville, its football team, and its high school. Moreove r, Tyler’s state ments that Z immer “should fe el embar rasse d and asha

med of what he did” and that he “owe s the Palestine t eam, [ its] fans, a nd the city

of Palestine an a

pology” amount to little more than Tyler’s e x pression of hope that Z immer will show contrition. W e iterate that when the speake r states thefa c ts u

po n whic h h e ba se s h is o pin ion , a nd tho se fa c ts a

ree ith e r i nc or

re c t or inc omp le te , o r h is assessment o f t h em i s err oneous, the stateme nt may still imply

a fa lse asser

tion of fac t. See Milkovich , 497 U.S. at 18–19, 110 S.Ct . at 2706. Such a sc enar i o as described in Milkovich
rese mbles closely

the bulk of Tyler’s supporting statements in his article

. Thus, we conclude that the answe r to the question of whe ther these supporting statements are actionable is depende nt upon whether the statement that Z immer “madean obsce ne g esture”is an objectively verifia ble fa ct. Ap pe lla nts c onte nd

that the state me nt that Z imm e r m a de an “ ob sc e ne g e sturewi th h is a rm s” is a subjective de scription of Z immer’s g estures. A ppellants furthe r argue that ther e ca n be no word that is more subjective and unverifiable than the word “ obscene .” More over, A ppellants note, as a

n
exa mple, that a “thumbs up hand g esture”can bea sy mbol of support to some and an obsc eneC iti n g R o g e r E . A x te ll, G e stu re s: T h e D o ’s an d T a b o o s o f B o d y L a n g u a g e a ro u n d the W o rld (1 9 9 1 ); s ee 4 als o gen er al l

y B et t y J. B äum l and Franz H

. B äum l , A D i ct i o nary of G est ures (19 7 5 ).

T here were other i nd i vi d ual plai nt i f f s i n t hi s sui t

. T he p l ai nt i f f s are ref erred t o co l l ect i vel y as “Fal k & 5 M a yfield , L .L .P .”

A sta te m e n t m a y b e false , ab u siv e , un p le a sa n t, a n d o b je c tio n a b le w itho u t b e ing d e fam a to ry. See Schau er 6 v. M em o ri a l

C a re S ys. , 85 6 S.W

. 2 d 43 7 , 44 6 (T ex. A p p . – H o ust o n [1st D i st

. ] 19 9 3 , no w ri t ). 

## 8 g e stureto o the rs . 4 

## Appellants re ly

heavily on Falk & Mayfield, L.L.P. v. Molzan , 9 7 4 S. W. 2 d 8 2 1 ( T e x. App–Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) in support of their position. In Molzan , the owner of Rugg les Grill in Houston, Texas was sued by a patron afte r her car , which she left i n the care of a valet parkingservice , beca me disabled a

nd was subseque ntly

vandalized and burg larized. Id. at 822. The patron was repr esente d by the law firm of Fa lk & Mayfield, L .L .P. Id. After an unsucc essful
atte mpt to m e diate thesu it, theowne r o f R ug g le s Gri ll p la c e d a por

ta ble sign in fr ont of h is b us ine ss,
wh i c hr e a d : “ A S K M E A B O U T LA W S U IT A B U S E & T H E LA W F IRM O F F A LK & M A Y F IE LD A T T O RN E Y A

N G E LA M O G A

N M CA L L I ST E R D E T A I L S I N SID E.” Id. Fa lk & Ma yfield, L .L .P. s u ed M o l z an for defamation, but later nonsuited their ca se. Id. at 823. Molzan filed a

5 

## motion to reinstate the sui tfor the pur pose of se ekingsanctions ag ainst Fa lk & Ma yfield, L .L .P., which the tria l court ultimately awa rded him. Id. Fa lk & Mayfield, L .L .P. a ppeale d the sanc tions order

. Id. On appea l, one issue conce rned whether the sanc tions award w as just, and thus, whether the plaintiffs’ pleading s wer e groundless and filed in ba d faith for the purpose of hara ssment. Id. at 823–24. In concludingthat the pleading s were , in fac t, groundless, the cour t of appe als stated as fo llo ws :

A n e s s ent i al el ement of l i bel “i s t hatt he al l ege d def amat ory st at ement b e a s t at ement of f act rat her t han o p i ni o n. ” [ci t at i o n om i t t ed ]. H ere, the m eani ng o f the si gn is so m ewhat am b i guo us, but a t m o st it a c c u se d a p p e llan ts o f “l a w su it a b u se .” T o sa y tha t o n e h a s e n g a g e d in law su it a b u se is t o acc us e h i m o f

l ega l l y mani pul at i ng t he ci vi l j us t i ce s y s t em t o g ai n an un f ai r adva nt age i n a per s onal o r com m erci al dis p ut e . I t i s an i nd i vi d ual judgm ent t hat res t s sol el y i n t he ey e o f t he b eho l d er. A d m i t t ed l y , t he accusat i o n is d eroga t o ry a nd d i sparagi ng, b ut thi s i s no dif f erent t han say i ng t hat one i s ug l y , s cur r i l ous , or di s gu s t i ng . T he t er m “ l aws ui t abus e” do es not , i n i t s co mm on us age , conv ey 6 a veri f i ab l e f act , but i s, by i t s nat ure, so m ewhat i nd ef i ni t e and a m b i guo us. B ecause i t i s a l o o se and figu ra tive ter m e m p lo ye d a s m e ta p h o r o r hyp e rb o le , it is a n e x p re ssio n o f o p inio n w h ic h is ab so lute ly p rotect ed by t he Fir st A m end m ent of t he U ni t ed Stat es Co nst i t ut i o n and Sec t i o n 8, ar t i cl e I, of t he T exas C o nst i t ut i o n. [ci t at i o ns o m i t t ed ].A ltho u g h J u stice S te w a rt w a s d e sc rib ing “p o rn o g ra p h y,” s ee J a c o b e lli s v . O h io , 378 U

. S. 184, 197, 84 S. 7 C t

. 1 6 7 6 , 1 6 8 3 , 1 2 L

. E d

. 2 d 7 9 3 (1 9 6 4 ) (S t ew art, J. co nc urring), p o rno gra p hic m aterial, wh i ch i s o b sce ne , f o rm s a su b g ro u p o f all o b sc e n e e x p re ssio n , b u t no t t h e w h o le , as the w o rd o b sc e n e is use d in o u r la n g u a g e . See M i ller , 413 U

. S. a t 18, 93 S. Ct

. a t 2612 n

. 2. 

## 9 Id. at 824. Ad o pting the r ationale se t forth in Molzan , w e n e xt c o n s id e r wh e th e r th e w o r d “ obscene ” is, by its nature, an inde finite o r am b i gu ous individual judgment that re sts solely in the eye of the beholder or is otherwise a l o o s e and figurative te rm. See id. As tr a dit ion a lly us e d in theEn g lis h langua g e, “ob sce ne ” is d e fi ne d a s “ dis gus tin gto t he se ns e s, gro ssl y

repu gna nt t o th e g e ne ra lly
acc epted notions of what is appropriate , offe nsive or revolting as counteringor violatingsome ideal or principle.” M

i l l e r v . C a lif ornia , 413 U.S. 15, 18, 93 S. C t. 2607, 2612, 37 L . Ed. 2d 419 n.2 (1 97 2) ; see also T HE 

## A MER I C AN 

## H ER I TA GE 

## D I CT I O N A RY 

## , 8 58 (2 nd Col le g e e d. 19 82 ); B LACK 

## ’ S 

## LAW 

## D I CT I O N A RY 

## , 1 07 6 ( 6th

e d. 19 90 ). Part ic ula

rl y , w ith re g ard

to c ri min a l ob sc e nit

y statut e s, a

state may ch ose to define an obsce nity offe nse in terms of c ontemporar y community

standards w ithout specific ation or may

choose to define standards in more prec ise g eographic terms. See Jenkins v. Ge or gia , 418 U.S. 143, 157, 94 S. Ct. 2750, 2753, 41 L

. Ed. 2d 642 (1974). Y et, the def inition of obscenity is arguably

dictated on a

persona l rather

than a ge ographic level. As Just ice Stewa rt famously stated whe n attempting to de fine the el usive conc ept, “I know it when I

see it.” 7 

## Ja c ob elli s v . Ohio , 3 7 8 U

. S

. 1 8 4 , 1 9 7 , 8 4 S

. C t

. 1 6 7 6 , 1 6 8 3 , 1 2 L

. E d

. 2 d 7 9 3 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ( Ste w art , J.
concur ring ). In the ca se at ha

nd, Tyler’s state ment that the g esture Z immer made w ith his arms was “obsce ne,” w ithout further de scription, is subjective a nd indefinite. The a

nswer to the que stion of whether something is “ obscene ” varie s from state to state, from c ommunity to community , and fr om person to per son. See Miller , 4 13 U. S. at 37 , 9 3 S. Ct. at 26 22 ; Jenki ns , 418 U.S. 143, 94 S. C t. at 27 53 ; Ja c ob elli

s , 378 U.S. at 197, 84 S. Ct . at 1683 (Stewa rt, J . concur

ring ). It i s an indi vidual jud gme nt t

hat r e sts so le ly

in t he e ye of thebe ho lde r a

nd , a s su c h, is n ot a

n o bje c tiv e ly

ve ri fi a ble statement of f

act. The ref

ore, we hold that the trial court err ed in de nying A ppellants’ no evide nce motion for summary judgme nt beca use therewas no e vidence in the summary judgme nt rec ord that thestate me nts in T yle r’ s art ic le of wh ic h Z imm e r c omp la ine d w e reob je c tiv e ly ve ri fi a blestate me ntsInas m uch as Ap p el l ant s’ s eco nd i ss ue i s d i spo si t i ve o f t hi s ap p eal , we d o not reach A p p el l ant s’ remaini ng 8 issu e s. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 

## 10 of fa ct. Appellants’ se cond issue is sustained. 8



## D I S P OS I T I ON 

## Havingsustained Appellants’ second issue, we reverse the trial cour t’s judgme nt and render j u d gm en tth atZi mm er

t ak e n o th i n g.

BR IA N H OY LE Justice
Opinion delivere d June 25, 2008. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.



## (PUBLISH)