WALKER
v.
TIMES PUBLISHING CO.
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.
Walker, a public figure, sued Times Publishing Company for publishing a news release from the Associated Press. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that as a public figure involved in matters of public concern, Walker could not establish liability for the publication of wire service content.
The defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. No genuine issue of material fact exists, and under applicable law including New York Times v. Sullivan and the controlling precedents, the defendant's publication of the AP news release does not subject it to liability.
“the plaintiff Walker's public life was well known to the people of this nation; that he was the subject of nationwide news reports, and that at the time of the complained of publication he was involved in matters of public concern and was a public man”
Establishes Walker's status as a public figure, which is the critical factor in determining his limited right to sue for defamation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant published a news release received from the Associated Press. The plaintiff, Walker, was a public figure whose public life was well known…
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 Public Figure cases and more on FLexlaw
Summary judgment: The motion of the defendant for summary judgment, pursuant to rule 1.36 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, has been presented, and the court having heard arguments of counsel and considered the whole of the record in this cause makes the following conclusions —
The uncontroverted facts in the record show that the matter complained of by the plaintiff was a portion of a news release received from the Associated Press, a recognized wire service.
This court, judicially and from the record herein, knows that the plaintiff Walker’s public life was well known to the people of this nation; that he was the subject of nationwide news reports, and that at the time of the complained of publication he was involved in matters of public concern and was a public man.
The case of Layne v. Tribune Co., 146 So. 234 (1933), and more particularly and recently the case of MacGregor v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 119 So. 2d 85, are applicable and decisive in this case.
This court is further of the opinion that the decision of the U. S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, Louisville, Kentucky, civil action no. 4639, Edwin A. Walker v. Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Company, Inc., WHAS, Inc., entered on September 23, 1965, by James F. Gordon, judge of said court, a copy of which was filed in this cause and make a part of this record, and N. Y. Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, are likewise applicable as the controlling law of this case.
This court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the defendant is entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be and the same is hereby granted; that the plaintiff have and recover nothing by his suit; that the defendant, Times Publishing Company, go hence without day.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Associated Press, 33 Fla. Supp. 102 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1970)
-
Craig v. Moore, 48 Fla. Supp. 29 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1978)
Authorities Cited
- N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964)
- Layne v. The Tribune Co., 108 Fla. 177 (Fla. 1933)
- Duncan MacGREGOR v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 119 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)