Arthur Jones v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

Eleventh Circuit

Arthur Jones v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

961 F.2d 1546, 1992 WL 105118

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 1992

Docket88-3925

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 961 F.2d 1546 (Arthur Jones v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur Jones v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 961 F.2d 1546, 1992 WL 105118 (11th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

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.

*1547 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

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.

*1547 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

961 F.2d 1546, 1992 WL 105118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-jones-v-american-broadcasting-companies-inc-ca11-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack