EDUARDO QUIN IGLESIAS/REAL ASSET MANAGEMENT
v.
ROBERT CREED NORMAN A/K/A BOB NORMAN

Fla. 4th DCA | 2022-10-19
No. 2021-2859
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2022)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Headnotes

[1] A government employee's status as a public official for defamation purposes does not attach simply because the individual is in government employment.

[2] A defamation plaintiff's status as a public official requires more than mere government employment; it typically involves injection into a public controversy or a public…

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Defamation

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Defamation cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

We affirm final summary judgment in favor of appellee WPLG on appellant’s defamation claim. While the trial court erred in concluding that appellant, an entry level employee with the Department of Business Regulation was a “public official,”1 nevertheless, the trial court did not err

in concluding that the summary judgment evidence showed that WPLG’s reporting involving appellant was substantially true or amounted to non-actionable opinion or hyperbole. See Smith v. Cuban Am. Nat’l Found., 731 So. 2d 702, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“[F]alsity only exists if the publication is substantially and materially false, not just if it is technically false.”); Woodard v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 616 So. 2d 501, 502–03 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); see also Readon v. WPLG, LLC, 317 So. 3d 1229, 1234–35 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Under the substantial truth doctrine, a statement does not have to be perfectly accurate if the ‘gist’ or the ‘sting’ of the statement is true . . . Florida law recognizes a difference between statements presented as fact and statements presented as an opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.”).

Affirmed.

WARNER, CIKLIN and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * *

Footnotes
1 The court relied on Bishop v. Wometco Enters., Inc., 235 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), to conclude that appellant was a public official. In Bishop, the defamation plaintiff was employed as an investigator for the City of Miami and investigating the practices or deficiencies of the Tax Assessor’s office of Dade County. Id. at 760. There, the plaintiff testified at a public hearing before the City Commission and the defamation action was based upon statements about his testimony in a public proceeding. Id. This is a far cry from the facts of this case, which does not involve a public proceeding in which the plaintiff became the central figure. This case is more like Wilkinson v. Florida Adult Care Ass’n, Inc., 450 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), which explained that “a public official designation does not attach simply because one is in government employment.” Id. at 1171. In Wilkinson, an adult congregate living facility (“ACLF”) coordinator of the Department of Health and Safety sued a newspaper for defamation in its reporting connecting him with elder abuse after the inspector’s visit to ACLF

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw