Milkovich v. News-Herald

Citations: 591 N.E.2d 394; 70 Ohio App. 3d 480; 8 Ohio App. Unrep. 650; 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 5244Docket: No. 13-009.

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; December 2, 1990; Ohio; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Litigation arose from a sports column in the News-Herald questioning the credibility of witnesses related to the Ohio High School Athletic Association's actions against the Maple Heights wrestling team in 1975. Michael Milkovich, Sr. filed a libel suit, where the trial court classified him as a public figure and ruled in favor of the appellees. This decision was reversed by the court of appeals, but the Ohio Supreme Court denied certification. Upon remand, the trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, deeming the column protected opinion. This ruling was upheld by the appellate court, but the Ohio Supreme Court later overruled it, stating the column was not constitutionally protected opinion in Milkovich v. News-Herald (1984). Concurrently, H. Don Scott, another witness, also attempted a libel suit, which the trial court ruled in favor of the appellees under the same protected opinion rationale. Following the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling in Milkovich, Scott's case was reviewed, leading to a conflicting decision that the column was protected opinion. The Ohio Supreme Court then ruled in Scott's favor, establishing the column as constitutionally protected. Upon remand from the Ohio Supreme Court, the trial court and appellate court ruled for the appellees again, referencing Scott. After the Ohio Supreme Court denied certification, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, reversing the lower court's decisions, citing misinterpretation of federal law in Scott. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the Milkovich ruling regarding Milkovich's public figure status and criticized the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation of Gertz v. Robert Welch, clarifying that not all statements deemed opinion are automatically privileged.

The Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Scott does not establish that the Ohio Constitution provides a privilege for 'opinions' independent of the federal Constitution. Although the court mentioned that 'opinion' is protected under Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, it based this conclusion solely on its interpretation of federal law, which the U.S. Supreme Court later rejected in Milkovich. The Ohio Supreme Court lacked adequate state grounds to maintain its interpretation, and while the majority initially cited the Ohio Constitution, its reasoning relied entirely on federal case law. Justice Douglas's concurrence also focused on federal rights, and Justice Sweeney's dissent suggested that the Ohio Constitution imposes stricter limitations on press freedom.

Consequently, it is determined that the Ohio Constitution does not offer greater protection to 'opinion' than the federal Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court in Milkovich clarified that certain statements implied an assertion of perjury rather than a protected 'idea,' necessitating a remand to the trial court. The trial court must assess whether the column in question was written with a degree of fault consistent with the Gertz standard. For public figures or officials, a plaintiff must demonstrate that false implications were made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. In cases involving private figures on public concerns, the plaintiff must show that the false implications were made with some level of fault, as established in Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Pub. Co. The appellees' motion for judgment is overruled, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.