dale wamstad shot by wife
We disagree that no "public" controversy existed. Trial in that case was pending at the time the Article was published. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345. See Brueggemeyer, 684 F.Supp. Certain Defendant-Appellants filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(i), which we need not address because we dispose of all issues based on Defendants' traditional motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(c). Wamstad, who founded the Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steakhouse concept in New Orleans in the late 80s then teamed with Dee Lincoln to expand the concept in Dallas, says the new restaurant will be a mix of "true American" cuisines, which . P. 166a(c). Ms. New York Times Co. v. Connor, 365 F.2d 567, 576 (5th Cir. In actual-malice cases, such affidavits must establish the defendant's belief in the challenged statements' truth and provide a plausible basis for this belief. While that may well raise a fact question whether Rumore did indeed act in self-defense, it is not probative of Rumore's subjective attitude toward the truth of the Statements she made. The AP article quoted Fertel as telling Rumore after the shooting that if she fired that many shots at Wamstad and didn't get him, Fertel was going to have to give Rumore shooting lessons. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order insofar as it denies their motions for summary judgment and render judgment in favor of all Appellants. Dale spent 20 years in the insurance business and in 1977 formed an investment group that funded a Popeye's Famous Fried Chicken franchise. I spend Sundays with my family. After he sold his interest in Del Frisco's, Wamstad continued to use his family values to promote his new restaurant, III Forks, which he opened in 1998.5, The press reported on a number of Wamstad's business disputes, particularly those with a personal edge to them. Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 427. Although at trial the libel plaintiff must establish actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, at the summary judgment stage the court applies the traditional summary-judgment jurisprudence in testing whether the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact. Anything else you'd like to say?C1: I love you, Mom and Dane.C2: I love you, Mommy and Dane.C1: I love you, Nanny.C2: I love you, Nanny.Dale: And to Colleen (music and lyrics) it's a sin, my darling, how I love you. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. "`By publishing your views you invite public criticism and rebuttal; you enter voluntarily into one of the submarkets of ideas and opinions and consent therefore to the rough competition in the marketplace.'" Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561, 590-96 (Tex.2002) (reviewing finding of actual malice for sufficiency, incorporating clear and convincing standard on review). NEW TIMES, INC. d/b/a Dallas Observer; Mark Stuertz; Lena Rumore Waddell, Lou Saba; and Jack Sands, Appellants, v. Dale F. WAMSTAD, Appellee. Thereafter, Wamstad married again, and began operating Del Frisco's restaurants in Dallas. Id. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. Accordingly, this is not a case where a defamation plaintiff was thrust into the public eye and involuntarily remained there. It is not enough for the jury to disbelieve the libel defendant's testimony. Before Justices MOSELEY, O'NEILL, and LAGARDE. That Court noted the mere fact that a libel defendant knows that the libel plaintiff denies an allegation is not evidence that the defendant doubted the allegation. The Dallas Morning News also covered the story, quoting Piper's and Wamstad's personal comments about each other. The Court summarized as follows: The defendant's state of mind can-indeed, must usually-be proved by circumstantial evidence. Using his charm, wit and steak house, he wined and dined the right people into complicit submission. Appeal from the 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1985). 9. It reportedly escalated from there. Wamstad himself perpetuated the public nature of the debate over his contentious relationships through his personal self-promotion in his advertising and his other interactions with the press-with all their attendant ramifications for the opinion-forming, consuming public. Once the defendant establishes its right to summary judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, thereby precluding summary judgment. ." Grease will kill you.Dale: That's right, Shelby Rose And Dale and Shelby Rose, thanks for helping me out today. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas. Lyons testified on deposition that Williams commented to her that the draft article was "libelous as hell, but it won't be when I'm through with it." Id. The Article also describes numerous disputes former business partners had with Wamstad, many of which resulted in lawsuits. Certain Defendant-Appellants filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(i), which we need not address because we dispose of all issues based on Defendants' traditional motions for summary judgment under rule 166a(c). Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. (Dale Wamstad, the Texas restaurateur who was running the place, was the topic of a lengthy article in the Dallas Observerin 2000 that detailed his past lawsuits, "bitter business partners,". Dale Wamstad and his wife, Colleen Keating-Wamstad, have taught their children valuable life lessons. For controverting evidence, Wamstad relies principally on his affidavit and deposition testimony denying the truth of the Statements made by, or attributed to, the Individual Defendants. Wamstad asserts Stuertz mentioned Rumore's pending lawsuit to him but did not tell him he planned to cover Wamstad's business dealings as well. . Rumore and the Divorce Judge's Pronouncement, As to Rumore, Wamstad relies on additional evidence, including evidence of a polygraph he purportedly passed, refuting Rumore's allegations of abuse. Chamberlain was reportedly perplexed: his advertisement had not mentioned Lincoln by name, and he had used the same advertising concept for nearly five years, which was a list that compared Chamberlain's four-star listing with the three-and-a-half stars enjoyed by Del Frisco's and others, with the recent inclusion of III Forks on the lower-rated list. Thus, that Wamstad and the divorce judge disagreed with Rumore's allegations is not evidence that the Media Defendants subjectively believed that Rumore's Statements, as they appeared in the Article, were false or that they entertained serious doubts about their truth. Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. Rumore filed the suit shortly after Wamstad sold his interest in Del Frisco's restaurants for nearly $23 million. Wamstad's first four categories of evidence, in essence, assert that the Media Defendants were on notice that Rumore's statements were false because Wamstad disagreed with Rumore (he allegedly passed a polygraph test) and a divorce judge disagreed with Rumore's assertion that she acted in self-defense when she shot Wamstad in 1985. 7. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 573. In an advertisement in the Dallas Morning News, Wamstad reportedly "blasted" Chamberlain for picking on Dee Lincoln, Wamstad's former partner and current manager of a Del Frisco's restaurant. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 596. Id. Wamstad's ex-wife, Lena Rumore, describes alleged incidents of Wamstad's physical abuse of her, her shooting of Wamstad in 1985, and the ensuing trial in which she was acquitted based on self-defense. That is, the judge's disagreement with Rumore's assertion of self-defense does not raise a fact question whether Rumore herself believed her Statement that she acted in self-defense was false. Although as a whole the Article is unfavorable to Wamstad, it states that Wamstad both in media interviews and under oath in court has steadfastly denied ever abusing any member of his family. It also includes favorable statements about Wamstad made by his current father-in-law. 5. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 346, 94 S.Ct. v. Wechter for the proposition that, when the truth or falsity of a statement is within the particular purview of the defamation defendant, then falsity is probative of malice. Now he knows enough about those events to damage just about any top official's reputation. This reliance is misplaced. Each Individual Defendant submitted an affidavit testifying that his or her Statements were not made with actual malice, e.g., denying any subjective belief or knowledge that his or her Statements were false, and denying having any serious doubts as to their truth. Wamstad's ex-wife, Lena Rumore, describes alleged incidents of Wamstad's physical abuse of her, her shooting of Wamstad in 1985, and the ensuing trial in which she was acquitted based on self-defense. Id. Chamberlain expressed the view that Wamstad wanted to create some publicity for his new steakhouse and was doing it at the expense of Chamberlain's reputation. Again, the press covered the personal aspects of the rivalry between the parties, reporting that both sides claimed total victory. In an advertisement in the Dallas Morning News, Wamstad reportedly blasted Chamberlain for picking on Dee Lincoln, Wamstad's former partner and current manager of a Del Frisco's restaurant.9 Chamberlain expressed the view that Wamstad wanted to create some publicity for his new steakhouse and was doing it at the expense of Chamberlain's reputation. The Texas Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue of what type of evidence is probative of actual malice in a case involving media defendants. Having negated an essential element of Wamstad's cause of action, Defendant-Appellants are entitled to summary judgment. Tex. It is not enough for the jury to disbelieve the libel defendant's testimony. . Wamstad's Dallas Del Frisco's restaurant regularly appeared near the top of the "Knife and Fork Club of America's" top-ten list of steakhouses in the country ("Top-Ten List"). Thereafter, Wamstad married again, and began operating Del Frisco's restaurants in Dallas. Wamstad sued Fertel for defamation, and Fertel countersued for false advertising and unfair competition. Huckabee v. Time Warner Enter. out of it. Select this result to view Dale Francis Wamstad's phone number, address, and more. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. 51.014(6) (Vernon Supp. Civ. However, leave Dee Lincoln and Del Frisco's . Wamstad's reliance on Wilson v. UT Health Center is also misplaced. The record includes the following radio advertisement for III Forks, featuring his children from his current marriage, with Wamstad making reference to his wife Colleen: The press reported on a number of Wamstad's business disputes, particularly those with a personal edge to them. See Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 555. WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. Wamstad reproduced the list in his advertising, particularly in airline magazines, reportedly with great success. Moreover, even assuming Wamstad's expert's testimony is admissible, the opinion on the Media Defendant's alleged failure to investigate speaks, rather, to an alleged disregard of a standard of objectivity. We reject this argument, just as the court in Huckabee did. That Court noted the mere fact that a libel defendant knows that the libel plaintiff denies an allegation is not evidence that the defendant doubted the allegation. We disagree that no public controversy existed. Dale Wamstad sells development just east of Richardson's CityLine.
