ARTHUR JONES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
PER CURIAM: This appeal is before us after a remand from the United States Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990).
See Jones v. American Broadcasting Cos., - U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 239, 112 L.Ed.2d 199 (1990).
Having reconsidered our decision affirming the district court’s judgment in Jones v. American Broadcasting Cos., 694 F.Supp. 1542 (M.D.Fla.1988), we once again affirm. The Supreme Court’s ■ opinion in Milko-vich addressed an affirmative defense against a defamation action. Milkovich clarified that merely labeling an allegedly defamatory statement an “opinion” does not insulate that statement against a defamation action. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at -, 110 S.Ct. at 2705. While the district court in the present case found that certain allegedly defamatory statements represented non-actionable opinions, Jones, 694 F.Supp. at 1552, it also found that, “[t]aken in context and without giving the broadcast any ‘tortured’ interpretation, ... a reasonable person would not have interpreted the broadcast, in whole or in part, as being defamatory to [appellant].” Id. at 1553.
Without a showing of defamation, however, the question of. affirmative defenses obviously does not arise.
The district court’s finding of no defamation therefore logically precedes its finding of non-actionable opinion. Only the latter finding, however, arguably could be affected by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Milkovich.
Accordingly, we see no reason to reconsider our affirmance of the district court’s judgment on the alternate, and logically prior, ground of absence of defamation. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Ardley, 273 F.3d 991 (11th Cir. 2001)…e been granted and this case summarily reversed on the authority of [the opinion in light of which this Court was to reconsider the case], rather than being remanded for further consideration”). For example, in Jones v. American Broad. Cos., Inc., 961 F. 2d 1546 (11th Cir.1992), this Court had affirmed a district court’s judgment against the plaintiff in a defamation action. The Supreme Court vacated our decision and remanded the case for further consideration in light of an intervening decision of the Supr…
-
United States v. M.C.C. OF Fla., Inc., 967 F.2d 1559 (11th Cir. 1992)…o make that determination. Thus, although the panel was not bound by its prior decision, it was free to adopt any or all of M.C.C. / that, upon reconsideration, it determined to be unaffected by Tull. See, e.g., Jones v. American Broadcasting Co., 961 F. 2d 1546 (11th Cir.1992). Cf. Moore v. Zant, 885 F. 2d 1497, 1502-03 (11th Cir. 1989) (plurality opinion of en banc court) (consideration of issues beyond Supreme Court’s specific mandate is “permitted by” the remand order), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.C…
-
Anthony Distribs., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 941 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996)…). At the summary judgment stage, the Court must determine whether the challenged statement is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning. Jones v. American Broad *1579 casting Co., 694 F.Supp. 1542, 1548 (M.D.Fla. 1988), aff'd, 961 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1051, 113 S.Ct. 971, 122 L.Ed.2d 126 (1993). The “poor sales” expression is not reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning, in that it appears to be nothing more than a legitimate business statement.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990)
- Jones v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 694 F. Supp. 1542 (M.D. Fla. 1988)