Graham v. Young Broadcasting of Richmond, Inc.

Virginia Circuit Court

Graham v. Young Broadcasting of Richmond, Inc.

60 Va. Cir. 376, 2002 Va. Cir. LEXIS 408

CourtVirginia Circuit Court

DecidedNovember 15, 2002

DocketCase No. LP-1723

StatusPublished

This text of 60 Va. Cir. 376 (Graham v. Young Broadcasting of Richmond, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Virginia Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Graham v. Young Broadcasting of Richmond, Inc., 60 Va. Cir. 376, 2002 Va. Cir. LEXIS 408 (Va. Super. Ct. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Melvin R. Hughes, Jr.

Before the court is defendants’ demurrer to plaintiffs claim for defamation contained in Count I and their claim of misappropriation of plaintiffs, name, likeness, or image under Va. Code § 8.01-40(A) of plaintiffs Motion for Judgment.

In considering a demurrer, the court assumes all the facts in the pleadings as true, along with reasonable inferences from these facts. Riverview Farm Assoc. v. Board of Supervisors, 259 Va. 419 (2000).

There are two parties plaintiffs named in the motion for judgment: Julian Graham, an individual, and Julian Graham Chevrolet, Inc., a corporation. Defendants argue that the defamatory statements alleged were regarding a corporation, and not about the owner of the corporation, Julian Graham. Thus, plaintiff Julian Graham has not alleged a cause of action of defamation. Plaintiffs contend that statements regarding the corporation and Graham clearly identified Graham with the corporation and must be considered together under WJLA-TV v. Levin, 264 Va. 140, 152-53 (2002). The court agrees with plaintiff in that defendant’s statements could refer to the corporation and its owner. Whether the persons who knew of the car dealership and its owner could or could not disassociate the two is a question [377]*377for the jury. Therefore, the court overrules the demurrer as to the defamation claim.

Regarding the claim on a violation of Virginia Code § 8.01-40(A), defendants claim that this provision has an exception for newsworthy items under Falwell v. Flynt, 797 F.2d 1270, 1277 (4th Cir. 1986),’ rev ’don other grounds. Plaintiffs claim that disseminating information regarding a private business is not a newsworthy issue on matters of public interest or concern. The court agrees with the defendants that the reporting on a local car dealership issue is a newsworthy item and of public interest. Therefore, the court sustains the demurrer as to the Va. Code § 8.01-40 claim. This claim can, in no way, be deemed a use of name for “advertising purposes or for the purpose of trade....” within the meaning of Va. Code § 8.01-40, according to the assertions made.

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

By Judge Melvin R. Hughes, Jr.

Before the court is defendants’ demurrer to plaintiffs claim for defamation contained in Count I and their claim of misappropriation of plaintiffs, name, likeness, or image under Va. Code § 8.01-40(A) of plaintiffs Motion for Judgment.

In considering a demurrer, the court assumes all the facts in the pleadings as true, along with reasonable inferences from these facts. Riverview Farm Assoc. v. Board of Supervisors, 259 Va. 419 (2000).

There are two parties plaintiffs named in the motion for judgment: Julian Graham, an individual, and Julian Graham Chevrolet, Inc., a corporation. Defendants argue that the defamatory statements alleged were regarding a corporation, and not about the owner of the corporation, Julian Graham. Thus, plaintiff Julian Graham has not alleged a cause of action of defamation. Plaintiffs contend that statements regarding the corporation and Graham clearly identified Graham with the corporation and must be considered together under WJLA-TV v. Levin, 264 Va. 140, 152-53 (2002). The court agrees with plaintiff in that defendant’s statements could refer to the corporation and its owner. Whether the persons who knew of the car dealership and its owner could or could not disassociate the two is a question [377]*377for the jury. Therefore, the court overrules the demurrer as to the defamation claim.

Regarding the claim on a violation of Virginia Code § 8.01-40(A), defendants claim that this provision has an exception for newsworthy items under Falwell v. Flynt, 797 F.2d 1270, 1277 (4th Cir. 1986),’ rev ’don other grounds. Plaintiffs claim that disseminating information regarding a private business is not a newsworthy issue on matters of public interest or concern. The court agrees with the defendants that the reporting on a local car dealership issue is a newsworthy item and of public interest. Therefore, the court sustains the demurrer as to the Va. Code § 8.01-40 claim. This claim can, in no way, be deemed a use of name for “advertising purposes or for the purpose of trade....” within the meaning of Va. Code § 8.01-40, according to the assertions made.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Va. Cir. 376, 2002 Va. Cir. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-young-broadcasting-of-richmond-inc-vacc-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack