Purvis v. Ballantine Et Al., 226 Ga. App. 246, 487 S.E.2d 14 (1997)
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Pope, P. J., and Johnson, J., concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Pope, P. J., and Johnson, J., concur.
Text
Chambers, Mabry, McClelland & Brooks, Lawrence J. Hogan, Charles G. Ragsdale, for appellees.Lawrence S. McLarty, for appellant.
1. Purvis contends the grant of the motion for summary judgment is null and void for two reasons. First, he contends the court's ruling is void because it resulted from an abuse of discretion -- the denial of his request for a continuance. Second, he contends the court was without jurisdiction to grant summary judgment, due to his voluntary dismissal of the action.
(a) The grant or denial of a request for continuance lies within the discretion of the trial court, see OCGA
Assuming far purposes of argument that the continuance request met all the statutory requirements, see OCGA
The court further noted that upon the denial of his request for continuance, Purvis' counsel stated that he would stand on his briefs. The court stated that because it had read and thoroughly considered Purvis' briefs, he had been heard. The defendants presented no oral argument at the hearing, and the court based its decision upon the briefs. On these facts, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Purvis' request for a continuance.
(b) Following the denial of his request for a continuance and the court's oral pronouncement of summary judgment, but before the summary judgment was reduced to writing and filed with the clerk, Purvis voluntarily dismissed his action. For this reason, he claims the court was without jurisdiction to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment. [1] However, "[a] plaintiff cannot dismiss an action between the time the court announces its judgment and the time the judgment is actually written and entered." Lotman v. Adamson Contracting,
2. Purvis contends the trial court erred in granting two motions for protective orders made by nonparties. The record indicates that hearings were held on these matters. "However, because there is no transcript of the hearing[s] on the motion[s] for . . . protective order[s], this enumeration presents nothing for review." Turner Advertising Co. v. Garcia,
Whether an individual is a public official or figure is a mixed question of law and fact for the court's determination. Brewer v. Rogers,
In this case, the evidence shows that Purvis was superintendent of the Clarke County school system from July 1982 through December 1991. As such, he was the school system's chief executive and operating officer, and he kept the public informed about the operation of the school system. He was interviewed by the newspapers on nearly a weekly basis regarding the school system, and twice weekly he broadcast a radio program to the public about the status of the school system. He routinely made personnel, administrative, and budgetary decisions affecting the school system, which consisted of over 10,000 students, and dealt with all major problems in every aspect of the school district's operation.
On these facts, we hold that Purvis, as superintendent of the Clarke County school system, was a public official. Relying upon the reasoning of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, in Ellerbee v. Mills,
Our analysis is not changed by the fact that the allegedly defamatory statements were uttered three years after Purvis retired from the superintendency. In Baer, supra, the United States Supreme Court noted that the fact that the supervisor of a public recreation area was no longer employed in that capacity when he was allegedly defamed was not of decisional significance. Baer, supra at 87, n. 14. The Court stated, "[t]o be sure, there may be cases where a person is so far removed from a former position of authority that comment on the manner in which he performed his responsibilities no longer has the interest necessary to justify the New York Times [v. Sullivan] rule. But here the management of the [recreation] [a]rea was still a matter of lively public interest . . . and public interest in the way in which the prior administration had done its task continued strong. The comment, if it referred to respondent, referred to his performance of duty as a county employee." Id. The same elements are present here. Because the school system was $4.4 million in debt at the end of 1991 when Purvis retired, its budget remained "a matter of lively public interest" even after his departure from the superintendency. Under the reasoning of Baer, at the time the statements concerning the alleged missed payment were made in 1994, "public interest in the way in which the prior administration had done its task continued strong." Id. Additionally, the allegedly defamatory statements, to the extent they referred to Purvis, were related solely to his performance as superintendent of schools.
It is therefore incumbent upon Purvis to show that any of the defendants' statements, whether made at the school board meeting or published in subsequent newspaper articles, were made with actual malice. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants each presented affidavits which said that the statements made by them were made in good faith, and with a good faith belief that the statements were true and correct when spoken, and that none of them had ever made a false statement or charge concerning Purvis with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth of such statement.
Purvis has failed to point to any evidence of actual malice giving rise to a triable issue. "The public official in a defamation action must show actual malice with 'convincing clarity.' New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra. . . . The requirement of clear and convincing evidence of actual malice is equally applicable in ruling upon a motion for summary judgment." Stange, supra at 733 (2). Contrary to Purvis' assertion, the defendants' depositions contain no evidence of actual malice. Nor is their refusal to retract their statements clear and convincing evidence that the statements themselves were made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for their falsity. In light of this evidence, summary judgment for the defendants was proper.
4. Due to our holding in Division 3, we need not address the parties' arguments concerning privilege and the statute of limitation. See OCGA
Ellen L. Whitaker, amicus curiae.
Notes:
1. The court orally announced its ruling on the summary judgment motion no later than 1:30 p.m. on September 5, 1996, though this judgment was not reduced to writing until later. Purvis' dismissal was filed at 2:27 p.m. on September 5.
Sponsored links
