SULLIVAN
v.
FLORIDA PUBLISHING CO., ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this defamation case, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that an advertisement statement about a home seller breaking a contract was not libelous per se and that plaintiff failed to establish special damages. The court held that without an effective innuendo, the words used were insufficient to support a libel claim.
The court held that the alleged innuendo is ineffective for fixing the character of a publication as libelous per se, and without the innuendo, the words used are not libelous per se and do not render the publisher liable without allegation and proof of special damages, of which plaintiff presented none.
“An alleged innuendo is 'ineffective for the purpose of fixing the character of an alleged libelous publication as being libelous per se.'”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that innuendos cannot convert non-defamatory words into per se defamatory language.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Sullivan owned a waterfront home. Defendants published an advertisement in the Florida Times-Union stating the home would be sold as-is and …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Innuendo cases and more on FLexlaw
Summary judgment: This cause came on for hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and was argued by counsel *52for the respective parties. At the argument, it was agreed that there was no actual or personal (as distinguished from implied) malice on the part of defendants, and that the publication complained of was contained in an advertisement appearing in the Florida Times-Union.
The advertisement stated in effect that the owner of a waterfront home would sell the same for the “best offer”. The words contained in the advertisement and alleged by the plaintiff to have been libelous are —
“This home has been lived in by a high ranking officer who willfully broke his contract to buy and will be sold as is. * * * 4961 Dian Wood Drive.”
The complaint asserts that the quoted portion of the advertisement — “conveyed the impression that the plaintiff was dishonest in that he willfully refused to honor his legal obligations”.
An alleged innuendo is “ineffective for the purpose of fixing the character of an alleged libelous publication as being libelous per se.” See Layne v. The Tribune Co., 108 Fla. 177, 146 So. 234; Cooper v. Miami Herald Pub. Co. (Fla.), 31 So. 2d 382; Emde v. San Joaquin County Central Labor Council (Calif.), 143 Pac. 2d 20, Tex 28.
Without the innuendo, the words used in the advertisement are not libelous per se, Richard v. Gray (Fla.), 62 So. 2d 597, 33 Am. Jur. 78, §60, and do not render the publisher liable without allegation and proof of special damages, of which there is none.
Upon the pleadings, the deposition and affidavit on file, and the agreement or stipulation that there was no personal or actual malice involved, the court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged— (1) The motion for summary judgment is granted. (2) The plaintiff shall take nothing by this action, and the defendants, Florida Publishing Company and John S. Walters, do go hence without day, and do have and recover of and from the plaintiff, John W. Sullivan, their costs, which are fixed and taxed at the sum of $53.25, for which let execution issue.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
West v. Fla. Publ'g Co., 30 Fla. Supp. 1 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1968)
-
Damron v. Ocala Star-Banner, 35 Fla. Supp. 137 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct. 1971)
-
Moore v. Fla. Publ'g Co., 35 Fla. Supp. 180 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Layne v. The Tribune Co., 108 Fla. 177 (Fla. 1933)
- Cooper v. THE Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 159 Fla. 296 (Fla. 1947)
- Richard v. Gray, 62 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1953)