Hickey v. Settlemier
864 P.2d 372, 318 Or. 196, 1993 Ore. LEXIS 175 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency's finding does not preclude relitigation of an issue in a subsequent civil case unless the issues are identical. A reporter's statement in a broadcast attributing a remark to a defendant is inadmissible hearsay when offered to prove the defendant published the remark.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Hickey obtained a federal license to sell animals for medical research.
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture inspected Hickey's facilities and subsequently filed a formal complaint against him for violating the Animal Welfare Act.
- Following an administrative hearing, an administrative law judge found Hickey had committed various violations, including unsanitary conditions and inadequate animal care.
- Defendant Settlemier, Hickey's neighbor and godmother, was interviewed for a segment on the television program "20/20" about "pet bandits."
- During the broadcast, a reporter stated on-camera: "She [Settlemier] says there’s no doubt in her mind that he’s mistreating animals and dealing in stolen pets."
- In a subsequent deposition, Settlemier denied making any statement to the effect that Hickey mistreats animals or deals in stolen pets.
Procedural Posture:
- Hickey sued Settlemier for defamation in an Oregon circuit court (trial court).
- Settlemier moved for summary judgment, arguing her statements were proven true by issue preclusion from a federal administrative decision and that there was no evidence of publication for one allegation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Settlemier, finding the administrative decision preclusively established the truth of the statements.
- Hickey, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded, holding that issue preclusion did not apply and that the videotape created a factual dispute over publication.
- Settlemier, as petitioner, sought review by the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a television reporter's statement in a broadcast, which attributes a defamatory remark to a defendant, admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to publication when the defendant denies making the statement in a motion for summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Peterson, J.
No. A television reporter's statement in a broadcast attributing a remark to a defendant is inadmissible hearsay and cannot be used to prove publication. The court first addressed issue preclusion, holding that the prior administrative proceeding did not establish the truth of Settlemier's alleged statements. The issues were not identical; the agency's findings of unsanitary conditions and inadequate care did not equate to the specific allegations that Hickey was 'dealing in stolen pets' or 'shoots animals.' The court then turned to the evidentiary issue, explaining that to overcome summary judgment, Hickey needed to present admissible evidence that Settlemier published the defamatory statement. The reporter’s voice-over on the videotape is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that Settlemier actually said those words. This is hearsay under OEC 801(3). The court analogized the videotape to a newspaper article, which is inadmissible to prove its contents. Because the reporter's statement does not fall under any hearsay exception, it is inadmissible, and Hickey failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of fact regarding the publication of that specific allegation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of hearsay rules in the context of modern media, establishing that a news report itself is not admissible evidence to prove that a quoted source actually made the reported statement. It forces defamation plaintiffs to produce direct evidence of publication, such as the reporter's testimony or a direct recording, rather than relying on the finished news product. The case also reinforces the strict requirement of identity of issues for the doctrine of issue preclusion to apply, preventing parties from using findings on generally related matters to dispose of specific, distinct allegations in subsequent litigation.
