Wright v. Florida Power & Light Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wright v. Florida Power & Light Co.

559 So. 2d 1228, 17 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2040, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2167, 1990 WL 37373

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 1990

DocketNos. 89-1610, 89-2031

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 559 So. 2d 1228 (Wright v. Florida Power & Light Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wright v. Florida Power & Light Co., 559 So. 2d 1228, 17 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2040, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2167, 1990 WL 37373 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Homestead Newspapers, Inc., who was a defendant below, contends that the summary judgment entered in its favor by the trial court was proper because the newspaper articles in question were protected by the “opinion” privilege as well as by Florida’s common-law “fair comment” privilege. We disagree.

We hold, as a matter of law, that the comments of the newspaper articles in question constitute factual statements and not expressions of the newspaper’s opinion which otherwise might be protected as being privileged. Furthermore, we hold that the newspaper articles in question are not protected by Florida's common-law “fair comment” privilege due to the fact that the appellant, who was the plaintiff below, is not a public figure see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, [1229]*122911 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), nor has he done anything to make himself “part of the passing scene”, see Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Ane, 458 So.2d 239 (Fla.1984); Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So.2d 823 (Fla.1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 951, 90 S.Ct. 1871, 26 L.Ed.2d 291 (1970).

Accordingly, as to appellee Homestead Newspapers, Inc., we reverse the summary judgment under review and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. '

As to the summary judgment entered in favor of Florida Power and Light Company, we find no error, and accordingly, we affirm that judgment.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Homestead Newspapers, Inc., who was a defendant below, contends that the summary judgment entered in its favor by the trial court was proper because the newspaper articles in question were protected by the “opinion” privilege as well as by Florida’s common-law “fair comment” privilege. We disagree.

We hold, as a matter of law, that the comments of the newspaper articles in question constitute factual statements and not expressions of the newspaper’s opinion which otherwise might be protected as being privileged. Furthermore, we hold that the newspaper articles in question are not protected by Florida's common-law “fair comment” privilege due to the fact that the appellant, who was the plaintiff below, is not a public figure see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, [1229]*122911 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), nor has he done anything to make himself “part of the passing scene”, see Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Ane, 458 So.2d 239 (Fla.1984); Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So.2d 823 (Fla.1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 951, 90 S.Ct. 1871, 26 L.Ed.2d 291 (1970).

Accordingly, as to appellee Homestead Newspapers, Inc., we reverse the summary judgment under review and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. '

As to the summary judgment entered in favor of Florida Power and Light Company, we find no error, and accordingly, we affirm that judgment.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 So. 2d 1228, 17 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2040, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2167, 1990 WL 37373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-florida-power-light-co-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack