{ "id": 2855590, "name": "George Suchomel, Appellant, vs. Suburban Life Newspapers, Inc., et al., Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Suchomel v. Suburban Life Newspapers, Inc.", "decision_date": "1968-05-29", "docket_number": "No. 40822", "first_page": "32", "last_page": "39", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "40 Ill. 2d 32" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "237 A.2d 130", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1967 Sup. Ct. Rev. 267", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Sup. Ct. Rev.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278-90" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "383 U.S. 75", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167317 ], "weight": 9, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "85" }, { "page": "605" }, { "page": "85" }, { "page": "605" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/383/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 L. Ed. 2d 361", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 909", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12053280, 12053216, 12053158, 12053017, 12053078, 12052889 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0909-06", "/us/384/0909-05", "/us/384/0909-04", "/us/384/0909-02", "/us/384/0909-03", "/us/384/0909-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 F.2d 558", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 845598 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/354/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "380 U.S. 356", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1524777 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/380/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "390 U.S. 727", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6178083 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/390/0727-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 U.S. 254", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 379234 ], "weight": 7, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "279-80" }, { "page": "706" }, { "page": "708, n.23" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/376/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Ill. App. 2d 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2554554 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/84/0239-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 685, "char_count": 12270, "ocr_confidence": 0.784, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8250668191666476e-07, "percentile": 0.719742927097294 }, "sha256": "c21959ccd975f22b19727db9ed90ef705f5fc78724020089ffa0ad98d3fd36eb", "simhash": "1:ea5eb0e08190b323", "word_count": 2064 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:25:19.955276+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "George Suchomel, Appellant, vs. Suburban Life Newspapers, Inc., et al., Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Schaefer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff, George Suchomel, brought this action for libel against several defendants, among them Suburban Life Newspapers, Inc., and one of its reporters, Karl Bell. The circuit court of Cook County granted the motion of the named defendants for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed. (84 Ill. App. 2d 239.) We granted leave to appeal.\nSeveral issues are argued in this court, but we find it necessary to consider only, (1) whether the plaintiff, who was Sergeant of Police and Juvenile Officer of the Village of Countryside, was a \u201cpublic official\u201d within the decision of the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, 84 S. Ct. 710, and (2) if he was, whether the record discloses the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendants published and alleged libel with \u201cactual malice,\u201d as that term was defined in the New York Times case.\nIn his complaint, Suchomel alleged that the defendants, \u201cwell knowing the premises, but wickedly and maliciously intending to injure [him] * * * and to bring him in public disgrace and scandal, * * * wickedly and maliciously composed and published * * * a certain false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libel * * *\u201d in the form of a front-page newspaper article. He further alleged that the statements contained in the article were \u201clibelous per se and actionable as a matter of law.\u201d The full text of the article follows:\n\u201cCITY POLICEMAN ACCUSED OF BURGLARY [headline] Countryside Sergeant Denies Charges Brought Before City Council [sub-headline]\nBy Karl Bell\nFor the second time in three months Countryside\u2019s police force was placed into the limelight Wednesday when, after a city council meeting, a resident read a statement reportedly received from an area woman who contended, among other things, that Sgt. George Suchomel had twice within the past year, and while on duty made break-ins in the trailer court which is in the city.\nAccording to the statement read by Robert J. Brinkman, 5339 Kensington, the woman, a divorcee and mother of two, also charges that the two often spent \u2018from one to seven hours\u2019 together when the sergeant was supposed to be on the night shift and they spent time drinking liquor in the squad car.\nSgt. Suchomel denied all the charges.\nBrinkman refused to identify the writer, although requested by Mayor Melvin F. Eggert. Brinkman stated that her identity has been known to the mayor and to Police Chief John Girard for weeks.\nIn the statement read by Brinkman, the letter writer claims that the sergeant in uniform and using the squad car, would pick her up and then they would drive to a tavern where he would buy liquor which they would share as they sat in the police car.\nThe woman contends, according to Brinkman, that Sgt. Suchomel would ignore radio calls and often would lie about the location of the squad car.\nAlso stated was that several times the sergeant fired his weapon into the air \u2018for no apparent reason\u2019 and that he had twice broken into residences in the trailer court in Countryside.\nThe letter writer also was quoted as stating that she had informed the sheriff\u2019s police about the sergeant\u2019s activities and that she later denied them under pressure to do so by the sergeant.\nSgt. Suchomel has denied the allegations.\nHe told the Suburban LIFE yesterday, T was not at the meeting so I can\u2019t say I heard the actual statement read by Mr. Brink-man, but I\u2019ve heard what was read and, except for the fact that I know the woman who I think Mr. Brinkman is referring to, there\u2019s not a charge in her statement that is true.\n\u2018I\u2019ve told the mayor I have not done any of these things. So far I haven\u2019t been given a chance to formally answer any of the charges, for no formal complaint has been made.\u2019\nBrinkman stated that the mayor had known about the contentions, as brought out by the woman, before the mayor read to the council on September 25, a report from the sheriff\u2019s office in which the sheriff stated his investigations of earlier charges against the chief and the sergeant had no basis for criminal action.\nBrinkman also contended that charges as brought out now by the woman have been confirmed by an investigation of the sheriff\u2019s police and that the mayor has received an affidavit from the sheriff\u2019s office signed by the woman.\nHe stated the mayor has been \u2018holding out\u2019 by not disclosing the material to the city council.\nWednesday night the mayor said he would release the contents of the affidavit to the council members.\nMayor Eggert told The Suburban LIFE yesterday that on Thursday he contacted the woman in question and that she implied she would be willing to sign a formal complaint that night.\n\u2018The formal complaint was all written up, but when she appeared at the city hall Thursday night she refused to sign. She gave no reason.\n\u2018The question now is, inasmuch as no formal charges have been filed, which group can take any legal action, the council or the civil service board through the police commission?\u2019\nHe said he hoped to secure a legal opinion on the matter by today.\nT think we have to clear the air and see that the man has every right to be heard as to whether he\u2019s guilty or innocent. Surely, she also has every right to prov\u00e9 her side.\u2019\nBrinkman, along with former officers Richard Kocek and Richard Martin are defendants in a libel suit brought against them by Police Chief John Girard.\nHe seeks approximately $200,000 damages from each.\nWednesday night the city council accepted the resignation of Officer Richard Martin.\u201d\nThe original complaint was filed on February 6, 1964. The United States Supreme Court announced its decision in the New York Times case on March 9, 1964. More than three months later the plaintiff filed his amended complaint, and more than one year later the defendants moved for summary judgment. In the New York Times case the Supreme Court stated: \u201cThe constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with \u2018actual malice\u2019\u2014 that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.\u201d 376 U.S. at 279-80, 11 L. Ed. 2d at 706.\nIn the New York Times case the court refused to define the term \u201cpublic official\u201d (376 U.S. at 283 n.23, 11 L. Ed. 2d at 708, n.23.) Subsequently, however, it has been applied to a variety of law enforcement officers. (St. Amant v. Thompson (1968), 390 U.S. 727, 20 L. Ed. 2d 262, (deputy sheriff in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana) ; Henry v. Collins (1965), 380 U.S. 356, 13 L. Ed. 2d 892, 85 S. Ct. 992, (chief of police of Clarksdale, 2 Mississippi); Pape v. Time, Inc. (1965), 354 F.2d 558, cert, denied (1966), 384 U.S. 909, 16 L. Ed. 2d 361 (deputy chief of detectives in Chicago) ; Coursey v. Greater Niles Township Publishing Corp. (1968), post, at p. 257, (patrolman in Skokie, Ill.).) In Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966), 383 U.S. 75, 15 L. Ed 2d 597, 86 S. Ct. 669, the Supreme Court stated: \u201cIt is clear * * * that the \u2018public official\u2019 designation applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs.\u201d 383 U.S. at 85, 15 L. Ed. 2d at 605. See also, Kalven, The Reasonable Man and the First Amendment, 1967 Sup. Ct. Rev. 267, 278-90.\nUndoubtedly, circumstances could arise in which the application of this test might raise issues for the trier of fact (see Baer v. Rosenblatt (N.H. 1967), 237 A.2d 130), but in this case the determinative facts have all been admitted in the plaintiff\u2019s own deposition which the defendants filed with their motion for summary judgment. Suchomel served as Countryside\u2019s Juvenile Officer and Sergeant of Police. He acknowledged that he was second in command to Police Chief Girard; that the two men worked alternative shifts, leaving Suchomel in full charge of the department when Girard was off duty; and that he was \u201cacting chief\u201d with direct supervision over approximately twenty patrolmen and radio operators when Girard was absent from Countryside. It appears, therefore, that he possessed \u201csubstantial responsibility for * * * [and] control over the conduct of governmental affairs * * *\u201d (383 U.S. at 85, 15 L. Ed. 2d at 605), and held a position that \u201cwould invite public scrutiny and discussion of the person holding it, entirely apart from the scrutiny and discussion occasioned by the particular charges in controversy.\u201d (383 U.S. at 87 n. 13, 15 L. Ed. 2d at 606 n.13.) On this record, we are compelled to hold as a matter of law that at the time defendants published the article under consideration Suchomel was a \u201cpublic official\u201d within the rule of New York Times.\nSince the plaintiff was a public official, before he can recover under the test of the New York Times case he must establish that the article was published by the defendants with actual malice \u2014 \u201cwith knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.\u201d The remaining question, then, is whether, upon the materials before the trial judge in connection with the motion for summary judgment, there was a genuine issue of fact as to the existence of actual malice. In determining this question we assume the truth of the plaintiff\u2019s allegation that the statements in the article were false.\nNo affidavits or depositions were tendered by the plaintiff upon the motion for summary judgment. He argues, however, that his amended complaint was itself sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact as to defendant\u2019s actual malice. The amended complaint identifies the plaintiff, alleges his good reputation, and that defendants, \u201cwell knowing the premises, but wickedly and maliciously intending to injure the Plaintiff, * * * wickedly and maliciously composed and published * * * a certain false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libel * * These characterizations, however, do not state any facts whatever as to the knowledge of the defendants concerning the statements in the article, or their concern, or lack of concern for the accuracy of those statements. The omitted ingredient of a factual allegation of knowing or reckless disregard of falsity is not supplied by the repetition of adverbs and adjectives.\nWe do not agree with the plaintiff\u2019s contention that \u201c \u2018Actual malice\u2019 under Times v. Sullivan is apparent on the face of the libelous article\u201d, which appears to be a straightforward report of both sides of a public controversy. Nor is there merit in the plaintiff\u2019s attack on the summary judgment because it \u201cwas granted solely on the defendant\u2019s motion * * * and upon the plaintiff\u2019s deposition without the opportunity of plaintiff to file affidavits or offer additional evidence regarding the motion.\u201d The plaintiff was mailed notice of the defendant\u2019s motion on April 15, 1965, and the motion was not granted until two months later, on June 15, 1965. Section 57(3) of the Civil Practice Act expressly provides that \u201cThe opposite party may prior to or at the time of the hearing on the motion [for summary judgment] file counteraffidavits.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, chap. 110, par. 57(3).) The following sentence of that section put plaintiff on notice of the possible effect of his refusal to correct the failure of his pleadings to raise a genuine issue of fact as to defendant\u2019s actual malice. \u201cThe judgment or decree sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or decree as a matter of law.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, chap. 110, par. 57(3).\nThe judgment of the appellate court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Schaefer" } ], "attorneys": [ "Marco and Mannia, of Downers Grove, for appellant.", "Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz and Masters, of Chicago, (Don H. Reuben and Lawrence Gunnels, of counsel,) for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 40822.\nGeorge Suchomel, Appellant, vs. Suburban Life Newspapers, Inc., et al., Appellees.\nOpinion filed, May 29, 1968.\nMarco and Mannia, of Downers Grove, for appellant.\nKirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz and Masters, of Chicago, (Don H. Reuben and Lawrence Gunnels, of counsel,) for appellees." }, "file_name": "0032-01", "first_page_order": 48, "last_page_order": 55 }