Do You Need A Commissary For A Food Truck, Disadvantages Of Laboratory Schools, Articles D

(citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351 (1974)). The Casso court went on to explain that the plaintiff must offer, at trial, clear and convincing affirmative proof of actual malice. That Court noted the mere fact that a libel defendant knows that the libel plaintiff denies an allegation is not evidence that the defendant doubted the allegation. The restaurant is the latest culinary project by restaurateur Dale Wamstad. To establish reckless disregard in this context, a defamation plaintiff must prove that the publisher entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Id. Broad. At that time, Wamstad . Whether a party is a public figure is a question of constitutional law for courts to decide. He recently purchased an adjacent 10 acres, where he's already planning a 144,000 square foot second phase. Several inquiries are relevant in examining the libel plaintiff's role in the controversy: "(1) whether the plaintiff sought publicity surrounding the controversy, (2) whether the plaintiff had access to the media, and (3) whether the plaintiff voluntarily engaged in activities that necessarily involved the risk of increased exposure and injury to reputation." Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 558 (Tex. Six different former business associates, including Lou Saba and Jack Sands, recount their view of their business dealings with Wamstad and how they came to feel that Wamstad took advantage of them. Wamstad's role was both central and germane to the controversy about his contentious relationships. On July 16, 1986, Lena Rumore was found innocent. Wamstad's expert witness opined that the Observer's investigation was "grossly inadequate given the source bias, lack of pre-dissemination opportunity to respond, [and] lack of deadline pressure." Whether Wamstad's investment pays off remains . Wamstad's ex-wife, Lena Rumore, describes alleged incidents of Wamstad's physical abuse of her, her shooting of Wamstad in 1985, and the ensuing trial in which she was acquitted based on self-defense. Limited-purpose public figures are only public figures for a limited range of issues surrounding a particular public controversy. Veteran restaurateur Dale Wamstadt plans to open Four Sisters Cafe on April 18.It's his first big new restaurant in years. Id. Accordingly, the affidavits negate actual malice and thus shift the burden to Wamstad to produce controverting evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact concerning actual malice. In deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, we take evidence favorable to the non-movant as true; we indulge every reasonable inference, and resolve any doubt, in favor of the non-movant. The Texas Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue of what type of evidence is probative of actual malice in a case involving media defendants. at 423. We conclude that evidence is merely cumulative of Wamstad's testimony asserting Rumore's allegations are false. She alleged Wamstad had defrauded her with respect to her earlier property settlement, in 1992, for $45,000. The family he abandoned in New Orleans has a bone to pick with that. The Article is largely a recounting of various interactions with Wamstad as told by his ex-wife, his first-born son Roy, and some of Wamstad's former business associates. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 573. She also describes her subsequent divorce from Wamstad in 1987 and her post-divorce suit against Wamstad in 1995, alleging that he defrauded her with respect to her earlier community-property settlement.2 Trial in that case was pending at the time the Article was published.