Case Name: James P. Sellars and Kelly Sellars, Appellants, v. Stauffer Communications, Inc. Appellee
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1985-03-02
Citations: 236 Kan. 697
Docket Number: No. 55,387
Parties: James P. Sellars and Kelly Sellars, Appellants, v. Stauffer Communications, Inc. Appellee.
Judges: Miller and McFarland, JJ., join the foregoing dissenting opinion.
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 236
Pages: 697–702

Head Matter:
No. 55,387
James P. Sellars and Kelly Sellars, Appellants, v. Stauffer Communications, Inc. Appellee.
(695 P.2d 812)
Opinion filed March 2, 1985.
Timothy A. Short, of Spigarelli, McLane & Short, of Pittsburg, argued the cause, and Fred Spigarelli, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellant.
Michael W. Merriam, of Colmery, McClure, Letourneau, Entz & Merriam,. of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Holmes, J.:
This case is before the Court on a petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals in Sellars v. Stauffer Communications, Inc., 9 Kan. App.2d 573, 684 P.2d 450 (1984). The facts are fully set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals and need not be repeated here. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant and upon appeal that determination was reversed by a two-to-one decision.
Briefly, the question before the court is whether under the facts in this case the spouse of a public official in a defamation action against a member of the news media must prove the statements or publications were made with malice. The plaintiff, Kelly Sellars, was the wife of the Crawford County Sheriff and, although she was asserting she had been personally defamed, the district court held the sheriff, and not Kelly, was the subject of the published articles and, even though she was not a public official or a public figure, she was required to show malice on the part of the defendant.
A majority of the Court of Appeals, in a thorough majority opinion by Judge Parks and an equally thorough dissenting opinion by Judge Abbott, determined the trial court erred in requiring plaintiff to bear the burden of proving malice on the part of the defendant. We have carefully considered the record, briefs of the parties and our own rather extensive research and conclude the majority of the Court of Appeals was correct. As already indicated, the opinions of the Court of Appeals thoroughly consider the issues and we see nothing to be gained by repeating here what that court has already said. Therefore, a majority of the members of this court concur with the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals and adopt that opinion as the opinion herein.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.