Libel Case Study

Libel Case Study #1

The neighbors in an exclusive residential community first became suspicious when they measured the foundation of the new house being built on the corner. If the house had but one story it would still contain 10,000 square feet, huge by residential standards. A quick look at the plans on file at the county building office revealed the house would have three stories—30,000 square feet—and 12 bathrooms. Speculation arose that the owner was building a hotel or a rooming house. Or, since the owner was born in a foreign country, perhaps he was bringing scores of relatives to this country to live in the house. Or maybe it was going to be a commune!

A community meeting was scheduled. Reporters and photographers from the local press were invited. Nearly all the neighbors turned out to protest what they called “the megahouse.” County councilman Dirk Slater scheduled a hearing before the council on the matter and told the owner of the building, Fred Milke, that if he did not appear at the hearing, he (Slater) would do everything he could to have the building permit revoked. Milke appeared and answered tough questions from Slater and others. No, he said, he was not building a hotel or a rooming house or even a commune. Whom he invited to stay in his house was his business, he said, not the county’s business. The building permits were all in order, and he planned to continue with the project.

Milke was questioned by reporters as he left the hearing and answered a few questions. The neighbors went to court to block the building, but after a short hearing the judge ruled that nothing Mr. Milke had done or was doing was illegal. He was free to build his megahouse. If members of the community were concerned about this kind of structure, they should try to change the building code so it could not happen again in the future. Nothing in the current code put limits on the size of a house in this community.

The local newspaper, the Post-Leader, covered the dispute diligently. In one story published before the court hearing, reporter Kathy Kurl wrote, “There is strong reason to believe that Fred Milke either falsified documents or paid off county officials to get his building permit approved, according to unnamed sources.” Evidence presented at the subsequent court hearing proved this to be false; Milke sued for libel.

A. What will Milke have to prove to sustain his libel suit?


B. The newspaper argues that Milke is a limited-purpose public figure. They argue that merely by planning to build such a large house, Milke knew he would draw attention to himself. He appeared at a public hearing before the county council, and he did speak with reporters after the hearing. This makes him a willing participant in a public controversy who was trying to influence public opinion. Is Milke a public figure? Why or why not?

C. Kathy Kurl was questioned at the trial about where she got the information she published about false records and payoffs. She said she had picked this up at the initial community meeting. One of the neighbors told her that his brother knew someone who worked for the county, and that this person had said Milke faked the documents or paid off county employees. That was the only source for her report. Based on this evidence, what are Milke’s chances of proving the level of fault required in this case? Briefly explain your answer.