{ "id": 3636039, "name": "ROBERT WEINEL, d/b/a Weinel Company of Engineers & Surveyors, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DARIUS MONKEN et al., Defendant (Capital Cities Media, Inc., Defendant-Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "Weinel v. Monken", "decision_date": "1985-06-24", "docket_number": "No. 5-84-0280", "first_page": "1039", "last_page": "1044", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "134 Ill. App. 3d 1039" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "390 U.S. 727", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6178083 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "731" }, { "page": "267" }, { "page": "1325" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/390/0727-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 S. Ct. 1981", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 L. Ed. 2d 300", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "451 U.S. 911", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6213156, 6212133, 6212708, 6212425, 6213674, 6213865, 6211884, 6212987, 6214332, 6214078 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/451/0911-06", "/us/451/0911-02", "/us/451/0911-04", "/us/451/0911-03", "/us/451/0911-07", "/us/451/0911-08", "/us/451/0911-01", "/us/451/0911-05", "/us/451/0911-10", "/us/451/0911-09" ] }, { "cite": "419 N.E.2d 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 Ill. 2d 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5473789 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "168" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/83/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "466 U.S. 485", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6202607 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/466/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 U.S. 254", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 379234 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "279-80" }, { "page": "706" }, { "page": "726" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/376/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "443 U.S. 111", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6180640 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/443/0111-01" ] }, { "cite": "236 N.E.2d 778", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 Ill. App. 2d 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2478185 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/94/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "418 U.S. 351", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "418 U.S. 323", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6173012 ], "weight": 5, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "351" }, { "page": "812" }, { "page": "3012" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/418/0323-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 669, "char_count": 11821, "ocr_confidence": 0.763, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.10465417095745737 }, "sha256": "60e09e738c87dc2eb4779cf121048960f7194e5ff7ae0aefeb929289d33726d5", "simhash": "1:bed6e39daf06316d", "word_count": 1907 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:11.266607+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ROBERT WEINEL, d/b/a Weinel Company of Engineers & Surveyors, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DARIUS MONKEN et al., Defendant (Capital Cities Media, Inc., Defendant-Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HARRISON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Robert Weinel appeals from an order of the circuit court of St. Clair County granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Capital Cities Media, Inc. Plaintiff\u2019s complaint alleged that defendant had libeled plaintiff by publishing certain false statements, \u201cknowingly and maliciously, and with a reckless disregard for the truth *** for the apparent purpose of notoriety and the financial gain derived thereby.\u201d The allegedly libelous statements appeared in the following article in the March 24, 1981, edition of the Belleville News Democrat:\n\u201cMONKEN CRITICIZES SCHAU\nBy J. G. Maty\nOf the News-Democrat\nO\u2019FALLON \u2014 O\u2019Fallon Township Supervisor candidate Darius Monken says he, not incumbent supervisor C\u00edete Schau can find a way to build a water system for rural township residents.\nMonken said he could improve the relationship between the city of O\u2019Fallon and the township \u2014 and work towards reaching an agreement for a water supply.\nAnd Monken has criticized Schau for what he called a \u2018professional trick\u2019 on the part of an engineering firm hired by the township to design a water system for rural areas.\nAccording to Monken, the engineering firm \u2014 Weinel & Co. Surveyers [sic] and Planners of O\u2019Fallon \u2014 were to be paid for design work only if grant money was approved for the water line project. But the township in December paid the company $15,000 for the water line plan, even though no funding for the project has been received.\nDuring an interview last week, Monken produced a letter from the company that proposed the company receive payment for its work \u2018only if grant money for the project is received.\u2019\n\u2018It was a professional trick,\u2019 Monken said \u2014 relating to a longtime relationship between Schau and Weinel Co. Schau has been employed in the past by the company, Monken said.\n\u2018There\u2019s no truth in that,\u2019 Schau said.\nJoan Weinel of Weinel Co. said that Monken has also worked for the company in the past.\nSchau said the township was advised by its attorney that the contract with Weinel was binding, and the firm had to be paid for its services.\nThe grant for the water system had been approved by the federal Farmers Home Administration in 1978, but the grant was lost because the township could not come to an agreement with the city of O\u2019Fallon for a water supply.\nA follow-up plan to obtain water from the Summerfield-Lebanon-Mascoutah Water Commission has been proposed, but the high cost and current unavailability of federal funds have derailed that plan.\nThe water supply agreement between the township and the city was voided after O\u2019Fallon Mayor Roy Smith took office in 1977. The agreement had been hammered out during the administration of former Mayor Gary Mackey, and was opposed by Smith.\nSmith said the plan was devised by a group of real estate developers \u2014 including the Weinel Co. \u2014 to aid their special interests and disguised as a benefit for rural residents.\u201d\nThe article made no mention of the fact that plaintiff had made three proposals to the township regarding plaintiff\u2019s professional services. According to a proposal dated March 5, 1974, plaintiff agreed to perform the services without charge unless the township received a government grant. According to a second proposal, also dated March 5, 1974, plaintiff agreed to perform the same services for a fee of $2,500. A third proposal, dated December 6, 1977, was actually ratified by the township trustees. This agreement provided that plaintiff receive $15,000 for the same services offered under the prior proposals. Darius Monken publicly opposed ratification of this agreement at a meeting of the trustees in December 1980 utilizing the term \u201cprofessional trick\u201d in referring to plaintiff\u2019s conduct.\nOn March 27, 1981, plaintiff filed his complaint against Darius Monken, Roy Smith, and Capital Cities Media, Inc. On February 6, 1984, defendant Capital Cities Media, the only defendant who is a party to this appeal, moved for summary judgment, setting forth the following grounds: (1) plaintiff, a public figure, was unable to establish by clear and convincing evidence that false statements were made with actual knowledge of falsity or with subjective doubts as to their truth; (2) the statements complained about were constitutionally protected statements of opinion; (3) the statements complained about were constitutionally protected under the neutral reportage doctrine; and (4) the statements complained about were not libelous per se.\nOn April 9, 1984, the trial court granted summary judgment. From the order granting summary judgment and the subsequent order denying plaintiff\u2019s motion to vacate the judgment, plaintiff appeals.\nThe trial court did not specify the ground upon which its decision to grant summary judgment rested. All bases set forth in plaintiff\u2019s motion have been argued before this court. We first consider whether plaintiff is properly characterized as a \u201cpublic figure,\u201d subjecting plaintiff to the burden of proving actual malice, as opposed to negligence, on the part of defendant.\nThe characterization of an individual as a \u201cpublic figure\u201d may rest on one of two foundations. (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), 418 U.S. 323, 351, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789, 812, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 3012.) A person may, in the first instance, achieve such a degree of notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. A person may, in the second instance, either inject himself into a public controversy or be drawn into such a controversy, thus becoming a public figure for a limited range of issues. 418 U.S. 351, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789, 94 S. Ct. 2997.\nPlaintiff became the subject of the news story because he entered into a contract with the township of O\u2019Fallon, accepting a commission for a public project which was the subject of controversy. Plaintiff was thus a public figure for the limited range of issues associated with the project (cf. Turley v. W.T.A.X., Inc. (1968), 94 Ill. App. 2d 377, 236 N.E.2d 778.) The instant case is distinguishable from Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979), 443 U.S. 111, 61 L. Ed. 2d 411, 99 S. Ct. 2675, cited by plaintiff for the proposition that a person may not be deemed a public figure when the only public controversy into which that person is drawn arises as a result of another\u2019s defamatory statement. It is apparent from the record that the plan to construct a new water system for the township was controversial from its inception, and plaintiff\u2019s participation necessarily exposed him to public scrutiny and public comment.\nHaving determined that plaintiff is properly characterized as a public figure, we must address the question of whether the record supports the finding that defendant acted with actual malice, i.e., with knowledge that his statements were false or with reckless disregard as to whether they were false. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, 279-80, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, 706, 84 S. Ct. 710, 726.) \u201cThe burden of proving \u2018actual malice\u2019 requires the plaintiff to demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant realized that his statement was false or that he subjectively entertained serious doubt as to the truth of his statement.\u201d (Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (1984), 466 U.S. 485, 511 n.30, 80 L. Ed. 2d 502, 524 n.30, 104 S. Ct. 1949, 1965 n.30.) It is not sufficient to show that the originator of the statement acted maliciously. The test has been aptly delineated by the Illinois Supreme Court in Catalano v. Pechous (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 146, 168, 419 N.E.2d 350, cert. denied (1981), 451 U.S. 911, 68 L. Ed. 2d 300, 101 S. Ct. 1981:\n\u201cAt common law a person who republished a defamatory statement made by another was himself liable for defamation even though he gave the name of the originator [citation]. Although the absolute liability which attached to defamation at common law was supplanted as to public officials and public figures by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and its sequels, the re-publisher of a defamatory statement made by another remains subject to liability [citation], but he cannot be held liable unless he himself knew at the time when the statement was published that it was false, or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. It is not sufficient that the originator of the statement made it with actual malice.\u201d\nPlaintiff contends that the record contains numerous indications of defendant\u2019s reckless disregard for the truth of Monken\u2019s statement. Plaintiff points to the fact that the reporter, J. G. Maty, according to his second deposition, was aware of the 1977 contract, but failed to make reference to it in his article. Plaintiff also points to the fact that Monken testified that he told Maty that the \u201cprofessional trick\u201d consisted of plaintiff inducing the township to execute the 1977 contract, while Maty implied that the \u201cprofessional trick\u201d consisted of Weinel obtaining $15,000 for the project even though grant money was not received by the township. In addition, plaintiff notes that Mayor Smith denied using the words \u201cdisguised\u201d or \u201cspecial interests,\u201d and that Maty admits this.\nWhile these facts, and others to which plaintiff directs our attention, evince a considerable lack of investigative thoroughness and journalistic clarity, they do not demonstrate that the reporter realized or entertained serious doubt regarding the statement that a \u201cprofessional trick\u201d had been utilized. While a more conscientious reporter might have refrained from repeating the term \u201cprofessional trick\u201d until attaining an understanding as to the precise reference of the term, or, assuming such an understanding, have made the reference clear to his readers, the essence of malice is not lack of prudence, but actual awareness of probable falsity. \u201c[R]eckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.\u201d (St. Amant v. Thompson (1968), 390 U.S. 727, 731, 20 L. Ed. 2d 262, 267, 88 S. Ct. 1323, 1325.) The pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other evidence of record are sufficient neither to permit the conclusion that defendant in fact entertained such doubts nor to raise a genuine issue as to whether plaintiff, by clear and convincing evidence, could establish the existence of such doubts. We therefore conclude that summary judgment was properly granted. This conclusion renders unnecessary a consideration of whether defendant\u2019s statements constituted libel per se or whether the statements were subject to constitutional privilege.\nThe judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJONES, P.J., and KASSERMAN, J., concur.\nIn his affidavit filed in support of his motion for summary judgment, Smith indicated that \u201cthe statement attributed to me *** was not a direct quote but was probably a paraphrase from an earlier interview with Maty regarding my opposition to the water project.\u201d In his discovery deposition, Maty stated that he could not recall the \u201cexact date\u201d he spoke with Mayor Smith about the water plan, and that he had \u201cparaphrased\u201d the mayor\u2019s remarks.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HARRISON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Goldenhersh & Goldenhersh, P.C., of Belleville (Marvin W. Goldenhersh and Murray J. Goldenhersh, of counsel), for appellant.", "Robert J. Hayes, of Hayes, Murphy & Hayes, of Belleville, and Robert B. Hoemeke, John M. Hessel, and Joseph E. Martineau, all of Lewis & Rice, of St. Louis, Missouri, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ROBERT WEINEL, d/b/a Weinel Company of Engineers & Surveyors, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DARIUS MONKEN et al., Defendant (Capital Cities Media, Inc., Defendant-Appellee).\nFifth District\nNo. 5 \u2014 84\u20140280\nOpinion filed June 24, 1985.\nGoldenhersh & Goldenhersh, P.C., of Belleville (Marvin W. Goldenhersh and Murray J. Goldenhersh, of counsel), for appellant.\nRobert J. Hayes, of Hayes, Murphy & Hayes, of Belleville, and Robert B. Hoemeke, John M. Hessel, and Joseph E. Martineau, all of Lewis & Rice, of St. Louis, Missouri, for appellee." }, "file_name": "1039-01", "first_page_order": 1061, "last_page_order": 1066 }