dale wamstad shot by wife

Wamstad relies on Leyendecker Assocs. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. To maintain a defamation cause of action, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant (1) published a statement (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff (3) while acting with either actual malice, if the plaintiff was a public figure, or negligence, if the plaintiff was a private individual, regarding the truth of the statement. This case concerns a defamation suit brought by restaurateur Dale Wamstad after a detailed article about him appeared in the Dallas Observer. Affidavits from interested witnesses will negate actual malice as a matter of law only if they are "clear, positive, and direct, otherwise credible and free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and could have been readily controverted." Make a one-time donation today for as little as $1. Legal Principles Governing Defamation and Public-Figure Status. Wamstad countered that Rumore's claims were groundless because she signed a settlement agreement in 1992 that paid her $45,000. In addition, a reporter may rely on statements by a single source, even though they reflect only one side of the story, without manifesting a reckless disregard for the truth. Williams testified on deposition that he spoke with Lyons, and they talked about what the Observer's lawyer and Williams had previously discussed. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. at 558-59. 452, 458 (N.D.Tex.1988) (businessman, the subject of consumer complaints and suits, was public figure because by his conduct he voluntarily engaged in a course that was bound to invite attention and comment). McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572-73. Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 427. Independent evidence is required: Id. When Ms. Rumore discovered the sale and compared the $45,000.00 she received for her half interest in the community, which included the Del Frisco's Steakhouse businesses, with the $22.7 million dollar sale price, allegedly received by Mr. Wamstad from Lone Star, she filed suit alleging fraud. We conclude that the affidavits contain ample evidence of a plausible basis for the Observer's employees to believe in the truth of the Statements as reported in the Article. Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 427. Id. 73.001 (Vernon 1997).WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex., Full title:NEW TIMES, INC. D/B/A DALLAS OBSERVER; MARK STUERTZ; LENA RUMORE WADDELL, Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas, stating that a reporter may rely on statements by a single source even though they reflect only one side of the story without showing a reckless disregard for the truth. Wamstad asserts he does not meet the public-figure test, because there is no public controversy. He argues that the challenged Statements do not concern the previous controversy over the Top-Ten List and his previous marital difficulties and his participation in business-related litigation are personal disputes and do not constitute a public controversy. The contours of the controversy requirement are at least partly defined by the notion that public-figure status attaches to those who "invite attention and comment" because they have thrust themselves to the forefront of a public controversy "to influence the resolution of the issue involved." Id. The Dallas Times Herald published two pieces on the dispute, one entitled "Dueling Steak Knives." at 423. The record refers to Wamstad's involvement in at least ten restaurants since 1977 and contains court documents concerning legal disputes over at least four different restaurants, involving four different former associates. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order insofar as it denies their motions for summary judgment and render judgment in favor of all Appellants. 166a(c). Wamstad asserts six categories of evidence that he contends controvert the Media Defendants' denial of actual malice: (1) the Media Defendants were on notice that Rumore's credibility was questioned by the divorce judge, who questioned her allegations of Wamstad's abuse and her claim that she shot Wamstad in self-defense; (2) in recounting her tale of life with Wamstad, Rumore stated "sometimes I'm not sure what is a dream and what is real," but nonetheless, Stuertz admitted Rumore was his main source for the article; (3) the Observer was aware before it published the Article that Wamstad had passed a polygraph examination that contradicted Rumore's allegations of abuse; (4) Stuertz admitted he questioned the logic of Rumore's remarrying Wamstad despite her allegations of previous abuse; (5) Wamstad's media expert testified that the Observer's investigation was grossly inadequate; and (6) on deposition, editor Lyons testified that managing editor Williams stated the Article was "libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it," and Williams testified he had no further personal involvement with the Article after that conversation. In sum, we conclude that Wamstad has failed to raise a fact question on actual malice. 2997. "To determine whether a controversy existed, and, if so, to define its contours, the judge must examine whether persons actually were discussing some specific question." News v. Dracos, 922 S.W.2d 242, 255 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) (actual malice cannot be inferred from falsity of the challenged statement alone); Fort Worth Star-Telegram v. Street, 61 S.W.3d 704, 713-14 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. Id. Williams testified on deposition that he spoke with Lyons, and they talked about what the Observer's lawyer and Williams had previously discussed. (citing Trotter, 818 F.2d at 433; Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publ'ns., Inc., 627 F.2d 1287, 1296-98 (D.C. Cir. He recently purchased an adjacent 10 acres, where he's already planning a 144,000 square foot second phase. Affidavits from interested witnesses will negate actual malice as a matter of law only if they are clear, positive, and direct, otherwise credible and free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and could have been readily controverted. Tex. All Defendants brought motions for summary judgment, which the trial court denied, and all Defendants brought this interlocutory appeal. Wamstad's role was both central and germane to the controversy about his contentious relationships. 2002) (reviewing finding of actual malice for sufficiency, incorporating clear and convincing standard on review). Patrick Williams stated the following in his affidavit: He had editorial responsibility for Stuertz's article, and he found Stuertz a most accurate reporter. For example, in the fall of 1989, the Dallas press carried at least four articles discussing the business-turned-legal dispute between Wamstad and Mike Piper, his former attorney, after Piper acquired a Del Frisco's restaurant from Wamstad. Thereafter, Wamstad married again, and began operating Del Frisco's restaurants in Dallas. The evidence includes an Associated Press article, from November 1994, that chronicled the long-standing personal rivalry between Fertel and Wamstad and also reported Fertel's allegation that Wamstad was behind the supposedly independent Top-Ten rating. v. Wechter for the proposition that, when the truth or falsity of a statement is within the particular purview of the defamation defendant, then falsity is probative of malice. Most, if not all of the statements about Wamstad in the Article were corroborated, either by prior sworn court testimony or by other witnesses, and based on the similarity of assertions made by the sources, he did not doubt the credibility of any of his sources, including Rumore and Roy Wamstad. After he sold his interest in Del Frisco's, Wamstad continued to use his "family values" to promote his new restaurant, III Forks, which he opened in 1998. The fact that Wamstad denied the abuse and disagreed that his former wife acted in self-defense in shooting him was not evidence that the Observer believed her claims were false and published. Wamstad argues that this expert testimony-that the Media Defendants failed to investigate adequately-evinces actual malice. The supreme court has adopted the Fifth Circuit's three-part test for a limited-purpose public figure: Id. at 1271. And when he wished to, he participated in the debate by using his media access to propound his point of view. Subsequently, in 1995, the press reported that Wamstad dropped the libel suit to facilitate his $23 million sale of Del Frisco's to a national chain. 973 F.2d 1263, 1270-71 (5th Cir. We disagree. "When the ink was dry on the partition agreement, [Wamstad] began to unravel the web for his own purposes, so that he could reap all of the benefits from selling the very business Ms. Rumore and the community capital had helped to create," say court documents filed on behalf of Rumore. The Court summarized as follows: The defendant's state of mind can-indeed, must usually-be proved by circumstantial evidence. Texas Monthly and at least one trade magazine covered the suit with Fertel, as did ABC World News Tonight. In 1980, with a newfound drive and outlook on life, he founded Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steakhouse and sold it in 1995 for . Id. For example, in 1995, the Dallas Morning News described Wamstad as "a colorful and controversial member of the Dallas restaurant scene since arriving from New Orleans in 1989." He challenged nearly all of the statements in the Article as defamatory, as well as other statements the Individual Defendants allegedly made to Stuertz that did not appear in the Article (collectively, "Statements"). The AP article was picked up by numerous Texas newspapers, as well as newspapers in Charleston, Fort Lauderdale, Chicago, Baton Rouge, and Phoenix. Thus, that Wamstad and the divorce judge disagreed with Rumore's allegations is not evidence that the Media Defendants subjectively believed that Rumore's Statements, as they appeared in the Article, were false or that they entertained serious doubts about their truth. See Brueggemeyer, 684 F. Supp. A public-figure libel plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with actual malice in allegedly defaming him. Although at trial the libel plaintiff must establish actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, at the summary judgment stage the court applies the traditional summary-judgment jurisprudence in testing whether the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, this is not a case where a defamation plaintiff was thrust into the public eye and involuntarily remained there. If he cannot secure it during the discovery process, he is unlikely to stumble on to it at trial. In essence, he argues that falsity of the Statements is probative of actual malice. The project's first phase is 88% leased and costs $12 million. Id., quoted approvingly in McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572. Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103, 120 (Tex. at 573-74 (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. Prac. 1980) (intensive advertising and continuing access to media made libel plaintiff a limited public figure). Chamberlain was reportedly perplexed: his advertisement had not mentioned Lincoln by name, and he had used the same advertising concept for nearly five years, which was a list that compared Chamberlain's four-star listing with the three-and-a-half stars enjoyed by Del Frisco's and others, with the recent inclusion of III Forks on the lower-rated list. Become a member to support the independent voice of Dallas We certainly agree that the public debate in this case does not involve matters of great moment in current public life. Prac. Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steakhouse was founded in 1980 and III Forks in 1998. Actual malice is defined as the publication of a statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Id. The restaurant is the latest culinary project by restaurateur Dale Wamstad. Wamstad's reliance on Wilson v. UT Health Center is also misplaced. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas. Id. Wamstad is a classic case of a shrewd business guy from out of town who got under the skin of corrupt local public servants. at 558-59. As used in the defamation context, actual malice is different from traditional common-law malice; it does not include ill will, spite or evil motive. Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 424. Wilson was not a public-figure case, that court applied federal procedural standards, and in a cryptic discussion it used the general term "malice," giving no indication it was applying the constitutional "actual malice" standard that we must apply here. During the Top-Ten List litigation, Wamstad referred in radio advertisements as having been accused by a New York public relations person (whom he had named as a defendant) as being diabolically clever and successful.. out of it. Rooster Town is the latest culinary project by restaurateur Dale Wamstad, owner of the adjacent Texas chophouse and Two For the Money BBQ. Doubleday Co., Inc. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex. Actual malice is a term of art, focusing on the defamation defendant's attitude toward the truth of what it reported. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 573. In context, the import of the statement in Casso is that, as to actual malice, the issue of credibility does not preclude summary judgment: If the credibility of the affiant or deponent is likely to be a dispositive factor in the resolution of the case, then summary judgment is inappropriate. See Brueggemeyer, 684 F.Supp. 2000). 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. 5. The Casso court went on to explain that the plaintiff must offer, at trial, clear and convincing affirmative proof of actual malice. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 596. independent local journalism in Dallas. Although at trial the libel plaintiff must establish actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, at the summary judgment stage the court applies the traditional summary-judgment jurisprudence in testing whether the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678-79 (Tex. "Limited-purpose" public figures are only public figures for a limited range of issues surrounding a particular public controversy. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 573 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 283, 84 S.Ct. Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex.1984) (reckless conduct not measured by whether reasonably prudent person would have investigated before publishing; must show defendant entertained serious doubts as to truth of publication, citing St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731, 733, 88 S.Ct. denied) (defendant's testimony established plausible basis for professed belief in truth of publication, thus negating actual malice even if publication not substantially correct). The purpose of the actual-malice standard is protecting innocent but erroneous speech on public issues, while deterring calculated falsehoods. Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103, 120 (Tex.2000). Once the defendant establishes its right to summary judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, thereby precluding summary judgment. Imagining that something may be true is not the same as belief. Civ. How are you doing?Child 1 (Dale, Jr.): Hi, daddy.Child 2 (Shelby Rose): Hi, daddy.C1: Daddy, why is III Forks called III Forks?Dale: Well, Dale, before Dallas was Dallas, it was a III Forks territory.C1: Daddy, why don't the steaks at III Forks sizzle?Dale: Well, honey, when butter starts to sizzle, it's turning to grease.C2: Oh, my gosh. We conclude the Individual Defendants' affidavits negated actual malice. To maintain a defamation cause of action, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant (1) published a statement (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff (3) while acting with either actual malice, if the plaintiff was a public figure, or negligence, if the plaintiff was a private individual, regarding the truth of the statement. He discussed the extensive interviews, media reports, court documents and transcripts Stuertz used and the level of corroboration among the sources. 1979). I probably deserve it. Chamberlain expressed the view that Wamstad wanted to create some publicity for his new steakhouse and was doing it at the expense of Chamberlain's reputation. Wamstad asserts he does not meet the public-figure test, because there is no "public controversy." . (Courtesy Adobe Stock) Rooster Town Cafe should open by Labor Day at 3613 Shire Blvd., Ste . We conclude that Williams' not recalling his next personal involvement with the Article does not contradict his later affidavit testimony that the Statements in the Article were not published with actual malice. (citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351, 94 S.Ct. The Article was precisely about that contradiction and thus a continuation of the public discussion of Wamstad's endeavors and disputes. The contours of the controversy requirement are at least partly defined by the notion that public-figure status attaches to those who invite attention and comment because they have thrust themselves to the forefront of a public controversy to influence the resolution of the issue involved. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345, 94 S.Ct. In its edition dated March 16-22, 2000, the Dallas Observer published an article (the Article) about Dale Wamstad, entitled, Family Man, with the caption on the cover stating, Dallas Restaurateur Dale Wamstad portrays himself as humble entrepreneur and devoted father. Wamstad reproduced the list in his advertising, particularly in airline magazines, reportedly with great success. That is, he argues, the Article does not involve the types of controversies found in public-figure cases such as Trotter, 18 F.2d 434-35 (union official assassination and labor violence in foreign country); Brueggemeyer, 684 F. Supp. Trial in that case was pending at the time the Article was published. Thus, that Wamstad and the divorce judge disagreed with Rumore's allegations is not evidence that the Media Defendants subjectively believed that Rumore's Statements, as they appeared in the Article, were false or that they entertained serious doubts about their truth. Civ. She's a great lady Chamberlain was reportedly perplexed: his advertisement had not mentioned Lincoln by name, and he had used the same advertising concept for nearly five years, which was a list that compared Chamberlain's four-star listing with the three-and-a-half stars enjoyed by Del Frisco's and others, with the recent inclusion of III Forks on the lower-rated list. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985). Dale Wamstad, also known as "Del Frisco," is the sole founder of two iconic, nationally recognized steakhouses. Wamstad responded that Piper was treacherous and mean-spirited for raising the shooting, adding that the shooting was all behind him, that he had remarried and had a wife and two beautiful kids. The continuing press coverage over the years showed that the public was indeed interested in Wamstad's personal behavior in both the family and business context. . To prevail on summary judgment, a defendant must either disprove at least one element of each of the plaintiff's theories of recovery or plead and conclusively establish each essential element of an affirmative defense, thereby rebutting the plaintiff's cause of action. Thereafter, Wamstad married again, and began operating Del Frisco's restaurants in Dallas. WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex.1998). That the Media Defendants published her Statements anyway, his argument goes, is evidence of actual malice. Veteran restaurateur Dale Wamstadt plans to open Four Sisters Cafe on April 18.It's his first big new restaurant in years. at 466. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. And it's not a steakhouse. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order insofar as it denies their motions for summary judgment and render judgment in favor of all Appellants. Our review of the record shows that after Williams was deposed, he testified by affidavit, stating that he went over at least two drafts of the Article with Stuertz, who answered all of his questions, and that the Article went through the standard, detailed process for editing and revision. 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. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. On May 26, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Wamstad's attempt to derail his ex-wife's damage suit seeking a portion of the $22.7 million doled out when Lone Star Steak & Saloon purchased Del Frisco's in late 1995. She had no knowledge at any time that the Article or any statements in it were false and did not at any time entertain doubts as to the truth of the statements. A lack of care or an injurious motive in making a statement is not alone proof of actual malice, but care and motive are factors to be considered. Co. L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex.2000). Moreover, the judge's assessment is not probative of whether Rumore believed in the truth of the other Statements she made or whether she entertained doubts as to their truth. To prevail on summary judgment, a defendant must either disprove at least one element of each of the plaintiff's theories of recovery or plead and conclusively establish each essential element of an affirmative defense, thereby rebutting the plaintiff's cause of action. We reject this argument, just as the court in Huckabee did. Lyons testified on deposition that Williams commented to her that the draft article was "libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it." Wamstad asserts six categories of evidence that he contends controvert the Media Defendants' denial of actual malice: (1) the Media Defendants were on notice that Rumore's credibility was questioned by the divorce judge, who questioned her allegations of Wamstad's abuse and her claim that she shot Wamstad in self-defense; (2) in recounting her tale of life with Wamstad, Rumore stated sometimes I'm not sure what is a dream and what is real, but nonetheless, Stuertz admitted Rumore was his main source for the article; (3) the Observer was aware before it published the Article that Wamstad had passed a polygraph examination that contradicted Rumore's allegations of abuse; (4) Stuertz admitted he questioned the logic of Rumore's remarrying Wamstad despite her allegations of previous abuse; (5) Wamstad's media expert testified that the Observer's investigation was grossly inadequate; and (6) on deposition, editor Lyons testified that managing editor Williams stated the Article was libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it, and Williams testified he had no further personal involvement with the Article after that conversation. Using his charm, wit and steak house, he wined and dined the right people into complicit submission. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. In an extensive affidavit, Stuertz stated the following, among other things: In researching for the Article, he interviewed at least nineteen people, reviewed numerous court documents (listing fifty-seven documents), court transcripts, and numerous newspaper articles concerning Wamstad (listing forty-eight newspaper articles). In an advertisement in the Dallas Morning News, Wamstad reportedly blasted Chamberlain for picking on Dee Lincoln, Wamstad's former partner and current manager of a Del Frisco's restaurant.9 Chamberlain expressed the view that Wamstad wanted to create some publicity for his new steakhouse and was doing it at the expense of Chamberlain's reputation. and help keep the future of the Observer, Use of this website constitutes acceptance of our, Dallas Observer's The Morning After Brunch. News v. Dracos, 922 S.W.2d 242, 255 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) (actual malice cannot be inferred from falsity of the challenged statement alone); Fort Worth Star-Telegram v. Street, 61 S.W.3d 704, 713-14 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet.

Casting Call Hawaii 2022, How To Open Gate For Siegmeyer, Could Chernobyl Have Destroyed The World, Poshmark Not For Sale, Northport Municipal Court Pay Ticket, Articles D