Court Opinion

ID: 9705875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:24:46.642473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:16.844877
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the court that summary judgment was properly entered on plaintiffs’ fourth and fifth causes of action. I note, however, that in the order overruling the motion for summary judgment as to the first three causes of action and sustaining it as to the last two, the trial court specifically held that the plaintiffs-appellants, who were doing business as Johnny’s American Inn, Inc., were public figures. He further held that as public figures they were bound by the rule enunciated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed 2d 686 (1964).
In my judgment the trial court is wrong in holding that appellants are public figures. If the operators of a restaurant are public figures, the operator of any other service business would be. The Supreme Court, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974), and Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448, 96 S. Ct. 958, 47 L. Ed. 2d 154 (1976), narrowed the rule as to public figures. In Gertz, it defined public figures as those who occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes or those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.
I write this concurrence because the real point at issue in the balance of this case is whether or not the appellants are public figures. If they are not, the libel rules enunciated in Gertz and Firestone, rather than the New York Times v. Sullivan rule, should control.
White, C. J., Brodkey, and White, C. Thomas, JJ., join in this concurrence.