Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On Election Day, Curtis Grossclose, an election judge, and Glenn Whitaker reported to the Bonham Police Department that they had observed Roy Vernon Floyd damaging and removing Republican campaign signs that had been posted near a Fannin County polling place. Whitaker indicated that, when approached by Whitaker and Grossclose, Floyd sped away. Whitaker and Grossclose also reported that some Republican signs had been found by them in a dumpster behind Floyd’s business. In his statement, Grossclose states he was advised by Larry Joe Ward, chairman of the Fannin County Republican Party, to pursue charges. The day after the election, Gary Carter, the Sherman Herald Democrat’s city editor, received a tip from an anonymous caller that the Bonham Police Department was investigating charges that Floyd had stolen Republican campaign signs. Vicki Graves, a reporter for the Herald Democrat, asked the police chief, Michael Bankston, about the allegations. Bankston informed Graves that two citizens had accused Floyd; that the department was investigating; and that no formal criminal charges had been filed. Graves contacted Floyd, who denied the allegations. Graves then composed an article concerning the incident and turned it in to her editor. The lead sentence in the article was: “The Fannin County Republican party filed charges on election day at the Bonham Police Department against Bonham City Commissioner Roy Floyd.” Darrell McCorstin, a wire editor with the Herald Democrat, assigned the article the headline “Bonham official charged.” The article and headline were published two days after the election, on Nov. 4, 2004, accompanied by Floyd’s photograph. The next day, Nov. 5, 2004, the Herald Democrat published an article headlined “Herald Democrat corrects story about Bonham official.” The four-sentence article states “[t]he Herald Democrat erred Thursday” and relates that no criminal charges have been filed against Floyd as a result of the complaint previously filed. Immediately beneath the above-mentioned article, the Herald Democrat also published a related item headlined “Fannin Democrats claim signs stolen” in which Fannin County Democrats and Republicans recounted incidents in which signs of both parties may have been pilfered by unknown thieves. The story repeated that a complaint had been filed against Floyd with the Bonham Police Department. In the article, Lisbeth Echeandia, a media relations worker for the Fannin County Democratic Party, is quoted as describing the complaint as “laughable” and speculating that the allegations were made because Floyd “refused to change parties” at the request of certain Republicans. The story noted that some of the signs may have been removed by the Texas Department of Transportation if they were placed illegally in a highway right-of-way. In the article, Graves stated that “Bankston said Wednesday that no charges have been filed and no warrants had been issued.” Ultimately, Floyd filed a libel suit against Larry Joe Ward, the chairman of the Fannin County Republican Party, who had first advised Grossclose to pursue charges. The petition was subsequently amended to include libel charges against the Herald Democrat, Graves, Whitaker and Grossclose. In his sixth amended petition, Floyd deleted Graves as a defendant. The Herald Democrat filed a mixed motion for summary judgment consisting of both a traditional motion for summary judgment and a no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. DR Partners, doing business as the Sherman Herald Democrat, raised eight points of error on appeal. It claimed that the trial court should have granted the Herald Democrat’s traditional motion for summary judgment, because the newspaper conclusively proved: 1. the literal or substantial truth of the statements in the article; 2. the lack of actual malice; and 3. the article was privileged under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �73.002. According to the Herald Democrat, the trial court also erred in denying its “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment, because Floyd failed to present any evidence of: 1. the falsity of the statements; 2. actual malice; and 3. the lack of privilege. In addition, the Herald Democrat claimed that the trial court erred in admitting as summary judgment evidence a collection of stories printed from the Internet and an article published on Nov. 5, 2004, which clarified that no formal criminal charges had been filed against Floyd. A public official must prove actual malice as an element of a libel cause of action. “Actual malice” means that defamatory communication was made either with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard as to its truth. To establish reckless disregard, a public official or public figure must prove that the publisher “entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” The court agreed with the Herald Democrat that Floyd presented no evidence of actual malice. Because the issue was dispositive, it was not necessary for the court to decide the remaining issues raised by the Herald Democrat. OPINION:Moseley, J.; Morriss, C.J., and Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.