{ "id": 3556365, "name": "MICHAEL C. ANTONELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIELD ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Antonelli v. Field Enterprises, Inc.", "decision_date": "1983-05-31", "docket_number": "No. 82\u2014601", "first_page": "432", "last_page": "436", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "115 Ill. App. 3d 432" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "279 N.E.2d 361", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 Ill. App. 3d 869", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2843467 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/3/0869-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S. Ct. 480", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 L. Ed. 586", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 U.S. 950", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3943783, 3941703, 3944941, 3945168, 3946673, 3947864, 3944505, 3950746 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/338/0950-06", "/us/338/0950-04", "/us/338/0950-02", "/us/338/0950-05", "/us/338/0950-01", "/us/338/0950-03", "/us/338/0950-08", "/us/338/0950-07" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.E.2d 862", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 Ill. App. 35", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5015162 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/337/0035-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 N.E.2d 727", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "412 Ill. 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2663600 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/412/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 N.E.2d 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 Ill. App. 2d 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2568443, 2568387 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/78/0053-01", "/ill-app-2d/78/0053-02" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ill. 2d 625", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "397 N.E.2d 41", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 Ill. App. 3d 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5602520 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "71-72" }, { "page": "71-72" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/78/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "442 N.E.2d 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 Ill. 2d 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3097134 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "352" }, { "page": "350" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/92/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 S. Ct. 3022", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 L. Ed. 2d 1120", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "447 U.S. 926", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6240128, 6241281, 6238146, 6240416, 6239492, 6239846, 6240742, 6239178, 6238858, 6237809, 6240981, 6238525 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/447/0926-08", "/us/447/0926-12", "/us/447/0926-02", "/us/447/0926-09", "/us/447/0926-06", "/us/447/0926-07", "/us/447/0926-10", "/us/447/0926-05", "/us/447/0926-04", "/us/447/0926-01", "/us/447/0926-11", "/us/447/0926-03" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 625, "char_count": 10054, "ocr_confidence": 0.764, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4046160732491703e-07, "percentile": 0.6453874337847496 }, "sha256": "fc0416ca5522a72181834d77149123645b28cf8eb93302cb3f5bb397e51ecc43", "simhash": "1:e9b428924c2d8bd4", "word_count": 1645 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:16:24.783716+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MICHAEL C. ANTONELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIELD ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HARTMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his pro se complaint in which he alleged that defendant Field Enterprises, Inc. (Field), had defamed him by referring to him as a \u201cmobster.\u201d Plaintiff alleged that a June 17, 1980, article printed by the Field-owned newspaper, the Chicago Sun Times, captioned \u201cMobster v. Media,\u201d knowingly and falsely stigmatized him as a mobster; that the article was printed in reckless disregard of its truth; and that defendant was negligent for having failed to verify that the statements made in the article were accurate. Plaintiff asserted further that he was \u201ca person of good name, sound reputation and character ***\u201d before the article was printed and circulated; and that the article damaged his reputation and standing in the community and caused him severe emotional distress.\nField moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to sections 45 and 48 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110, pars. 45, 48) now sections 2 \u2014 615 and 2 \u2014 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 110, pars. 2 \u2014 615, 2 \u2014 619), for failure to state a claim and because the claim was barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations governing libel actions. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 83, par. 14, now Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 13\u2014 201.) Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to these motions; however, the motion to dismiss upon the merits of plaintiff\u2019s claim was allowed. The circuit court expressly declined to rule on the applicability of the statute of limitations.\nThe background facts of this case reveal that plaintiff was a convicted felon who, in 1980, was serving four years in the Federal penitentiary for possession of a stolen automobile, bank fraud, embezzlement, bombings of certain properties, and a series of auto thefts. While in the Federal penitentiary, State charges against him arose in Illinois, including a seven-count indictment for attempted murder, for which he was sentenced to serve 15 years, consecutively to the four being served. Federal charges also arose, including a three-count indictment for possession of a handgun with a silencer.\nPlaintiff sought an injunction or \u201cgag order\u201d in the Federal district court while serving the four-year sentence in which he sought to minimize the effects of pretrial publicity and to prevent the dissemination of \u201cundue infamous news reports\u201d of his conviction for possession of a stolen car, bank fraud, embezzlement and the bombings, because such news threatened the fair trial of the then pending State charges for attempted murder and the new Federal charges of possession of a handgun and silencer. His petition for leave to proceed in forma, pauperis in the district court was denied. His appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was also denied. He then filed a petition in the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to the Seventh Circuit (certiorari petition) in which he set forth the preceding facts of his convictions and pending charges in addition to his summary of new articles which he stated had characterized him as \u201can unsavory man and a \u2018hit man\u2019 for the alleged crime syndicate.\u201d The certiorari petition was made part of this record, having been filed by Field in support of its circuit court motions to dismiss.\nThe United States Supreme Court denied plaintiff\u2019s certiorari petition on June 16, 1980. (Antonelli v. Tribune Newspaper (1980), 447 U.S. 926, 65 L. Ed. 2d 1120, 100 S. Ct. 3022.) The next day, June 17, 1980, the Chicago Sun Times reprinted an Associated Press account of the Supreme Court\u2019s denial of plaintiff\u2019s certiorari petition as follows:\nPlaintiff thereafter filed his pro se complaint in the circuit court of Cook County charging that the foregoing publication defamed and slandered him by virtue of its references to him as a \u201cmobster.\u201d He maintains that \u201cthere is a big difference in calling someone a \u2018litigant\u2019 or convict or something of that sort and calling him a MOBSTER.\u201d He argues that given the actual and obvious meaning of mobster, the article cannot be given an innocent construction because it imputes to him \u201can association and lifestyle which is untrue, and is libelous per se.\u201d\nAn exhaustive review of the law of defamation, particularly the innocent construction rule, was undertaken by our supreme court in Chapski v. Copley Press (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 344, 352, 442 N.E.2d 195. There the court concluded that:\n\u201c[A] written or oral statement is to be considered in context, with the words and the implications therefrom given their natural and obvious meaning; if, as so construed, the statement may reasonably be innocently interpreted *** it cannot be actionable per se. This preliminary determination is properly a question of law to be resolved by the court in the first instance.\u201d\nThe strongest reason advanced in support of the rule is one particularly apt under the facts of this case: that the rule is in consonance with the constitutional interests of free speech and free press and encourages the robust discussion of daily affairs. (Chapski v. Copley Press (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 344, 350; Dauw v. Field Enterprises, Inc. (1979) , 78 Ill. App. 3d 67, 71-72, 397 N.E.2d 41, appeal denied (1980) , 79 Ill. 2d 625.) Although application of the innocent construetion rule to the facts of this case may be deemed somewhat fatuous, it is clear that the circuit court in the present case correctly determined as a matter of law that the words \u201cmobster\u201d and \u201creputed mobster\u201d in the newspaper article did not defame plaintiff. However, in light of his record of law breaking and convictions set forth in his own certiorari petition, the denial of which was the subject matter of the story, it is clear that the article was nonactionable per se.\nGenerally, a headline and the news report to which it refers must be considered as one document in analyzing whether or not the words therein contained are libelous under the innocent construction rule. (Dauw v. Field Enterprises, Inc. (1979), 78 Ill. App. 3d 67, 71-72; Reed v. Albanese (1966), 78 Ill. App. 2d 53, 223 N.E.2d 419.) In the case at bar, when the headline \u201cMobster v. Media\u201d is considered together with the article appearing thereunder, it is clear that the reference to \u201cmobster\u201d was made in conjunction with the balance of the story in which plaintiff is referred to as a \u201creputed mobster,\u201d which, in turn, was related to his claim that he was unfairly identified as a \u201cmob figure\u201d and \u201creputed hit man\u201d in news stories which he submitted in his certiorari petition to the United States Supreme Court. The term \u201creputed\u201d means \u201csupposed, thought, or reckoned ***.\u201d (Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 1929 (1976).) \u201cSupposed\u201d in turn, is defined as \u201cbelieved to be or accepted as such usu. on slight grounds or in error: erroneously imputed or ascribed ***.\u201d (Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 2298 (1971).) Therefore, Field accurately depicted plaintiff as one about whom the word \u201cmobster\u201d had been \u201csupposedly,\u201d perhaps \u201cerroneously imputed,\u201d as the balance of the article reveals, thereby supporting the \u201cinnocent\u201d construction of the word \u201cmobster.\u201d\nFurthermore, the term \u201cmobster\u201d is frequently found in newspaper and periodical accounts in the reportage of criminal activity. Webster defines \u201cmobster\u201d as \u201ca member of a criminal gang.\u201d (Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 1450 (1971).) The word \u201cmobster\u201d also is informally identified with the words \u201ccriminal, felon, crook, law breaker, scofflaw, and gangster.\u201d (Roget\u2019s International Thesaurus 986.10 (4th ed. 1977).) The words criminal, felon, crook, law breaker, scofflaw, gangster or mobster all connote the same type of person about whom those meanings may be ascribed; one who breaks or violates the law. Based upon the petition submitted by plaintiff to the United States Supreme Court outlining his record of breaking and violating the law, it can hardly be said that any one of the foregoing terms could not truthfully portray and characterize plaintiff\u2019s criminal past, including the word \u201cmobster.\u201d To hold otherwise in this context would lend credulity to the Dickensian Mr. Bumble\u2019s observation in Oliver Twist that \u201c[i]f the law supposes that *** the law is a ass, a idiot.\u201d\nPlaintiff complains that by the procedure followed in this case he was denied his day in court and contends that the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing his suit, thereby preventing him from developing facts and issues in support of his case. Plaintiff was given the opportunity to respond to Field\u2019s motions to dismiss, however, and he did so in a four-page response. The circuit court\u2019s order of dismissal contains the specific statement that it took into account plaintiff\u2019s response to the motions. Dismissal of a complaint for just cause is within the discretion of the circuit court and the court may do so where, as here, the complaint fails to state a cause of action. (Deasey v. City of Chicago (1952), 412 Ill. 151, 105 N.E.2d 727.) This rule applies equally to actions for defamatory damages such as the case at bar. (Trembois v. Standard Ry. Equipment Manufacturing Co. (1949), 337 Ill. App. 35, 84 N.E.2d 862, cert. denied (1950), 338 U.S. 950, 94 L. Ed. 586, 70 S. Ct. 480; Van Tuil v. Carroll (1972), 3 Ill. App. 3d 869, 279 N.E.2d 361.) Under the foregoing authorities, no abuse of discretion by the circuit court can be discerned in consideration of the facts of this case.\nFor the reasons set forth above, no error in the circuit court\u2019s disposition of this cause appears and its dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s complaint must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSTAMOS and PERLIN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HARTMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael E. Antonelli, of Chicago, for appellant, pro se.", "A. Daniel Feldman, Steven R. Gilford, and Michael Goldfein, all of Isham, Lincoln & Beale, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MICHAEL C. ANTONELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIELD ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 82\u2014601\nOpinion filed May 31, 1983.\nMichael E. Antonelli, of Chicago, for appellant, pro se.\nA. Daniel Feldman, Steven R. Gilford, and Michael Goldfein, all of Isham, Lincoln & Beale, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0432-01", "first_page_order": 454, "last_page_order": 458 }