Court Opinion

ID: 9779072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:35:17.072839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:20.687385
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, concurring. I concur in the result because I do not believe there were sufficient allegations of fact to support a verdict for damages for defamation. However, I disagree with the opinion in holding that the appellant was either a “public official” or a “public figure” because the facts as developed in the pleadings do not support such a finding. If the issue is disputed, it is the duty of the trial court to make an independent determination of whether the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 88 (1966). See Cornett & Smith v. Prather, 293 Ark. 108, 737 S.W.2d 159 (1987). This case was not developed on that issue. However, since there was no genuine issue on defamation, it is not necessary to address the matter of actual malice. I wish to point out that a media defendant stands in no better position than any other defendant in a defamation action. Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, _ U.S __, 105 S.Ct. 2939 (1985). The media is subject to the same standard as the general public.