dale wamstad shot by wife

Rumore filed the suit shortly after Wamstad sold his interest in Del Frisco's restaurants for nearly $23 million. 175 years later on November 8th, 2011 Tuesday night at 8:30 pm in a Texas Hold-em poker game, Dale Francis Wamstad went all in with The Four Sisters. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 346 ; Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297 n. 27 ("controversy need not concern political matters"). We conclude the Individual Defendants' affidavits negated actual malice. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Turner, 38 S.W.3d at 120. Actual Malice and Burdens of Proof on Summary Judgment. She also describes her subsequent divorce from Wamstad in 1987 and her post-divorce suit against Wamstad in 1995, alleging that he defrauded her with respect to her earlier community-property settlement. out of it. The feud reportedly began in 1981 when Wamstad claimed Fertel's son had slipped her recipes to him. Prac. 1987)). For example, at the time of the dispute with Piper, the Dallas press reported that Wamstad ran an advertisement stating, "I've done some stupid things in my life, but selling my steakhouse to my attorney has to top the list" and another one in which he accused Piper of running a "clone" restaurant. Id. . 5 Times The Dallas Stars Went for the Gut While Trolling Opponents, Spoon + Fork: A Standard Name for a Not-So-Standard Restaurant, Chai Wallah in Plano Serves 9 Different Types of Chai, Toast to Mom: Where to Celebrate Mothers Day in Style, Mister O1 Pizza Opening Second Location in Grapevine, In Which Some Visitors From Paris Take a Food Tour of North Texas. 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). The judge ruled that she had acted in self-defense. Tex. The fact that Wamstad denied the abuse and disagreed that his former wife acted in self-defense in shooting him was not evidence that the Observer believed her claims were false and published. The record refers to Wamstad's involvement in at least ten restaurants since 1977 and contains court documents concerning legal disputes over at least four different restaurants, involving four different former associates. 4. 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. To prevail on summary judgment, a defendant must either disprove at least one element of each of the plaintiff's theories of recovery or plead and conclusively establish each essential element of an affirmative defense, thereby rebutting the plaintiff's cause of action. We conclude that evidence is merely cumulative of Wamstad's testimony asserting Rumore's allegations are false. In addition, a reporter may rely on statements by a single source, even though they reflect only one side of the story, without manifesting a reckless disregard for the truth. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968)). Wamstad sued Fertel for defamation, and Fertel countersued for false advertising and unfair competition. (citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351 (1974)). Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas. Subsequently, in 1995, the press reported that Wamstad dropped the libel suit to facilitate his $23 million sale of Del Frisco's to a national chain. Wamstad's reliance on Wilson v. UT Health Center is also misplaced. The evidence includes an Associated Press article, from November 1994, that chronicled the long-standing personal rivalry between Fertel and Wamstad and also reported Fertel's allegation that Wamstad was behind the supposedly independent Top-Ten rating. The record contains numerous advertisements containing pictures of Wamstad's new family and children; many advertisements contain his signature slogan We're open six evenings. Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 558 (Tex. This reliance is misplaced. Ecotricity founder Dale Vince, who is bankrolling the climate activist group, has also given . He was livid at his son for. 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 Article also describes numerous disputes former business partners had with Wamstad, many of which resulted in lawsuits. 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. The divorce court thus disagreed with the trial court's determination, in the previous criminal trial, that Rumore acted in self-defense. News v. Dracos, 922 S.W.2d 242, 255 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) (actual malice cannot be inferred from falsity of the challenged statement alone); Fort Worth Star-Telegram v. Street, 61 S.W.3d 704, 713-14 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. 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. Make a one-time donation today for as little as $1. Turner, 38 S.W.3d at 120. The feud reportedly began in 1981 when Wamstad claimed Fertel's son had slipped her recipes to him. Wamstad opened III Forks in August 1998 and sold it in July 2000. Rem. Grease will kill you.Dale: That's right, Shelby Rose And Dale and Shelby Rose, thanks for helping me out today. (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. Concerning the first element, a general concern or interest does not constitute a controversy. Waldbaum, 627 F.2d at 1297. Even if Williams was not joking when he stated the draft article was libelous as written, it is irrelevant whether Williams himself or someone else edited the Article before publication; Williams unequivocally testifies in his affidavit that the Article as published did not contain statements he believed were false or about which he entertained doubts. The Dallas Times Herald published two pieces on the dispute, one entitled Dueling Steak Knives. The Dallas Morning News also covered the story, quoting Piper's and Wamstad's personal comments about each other.6, In 1995, Wamstad's business and personal reputation gained national press attention when he sued Ruth Fertel for defamation over her suggestion that Wamstad was behind the Top-Ten List. The evidence includes an Associated Press article, from November 1994, that chronicled the long-standing personal rivalry between Fertel and Wamstad7 and also reported Fertel's allegation that Wamstad was behind the supposedly independent Top-Ten rating. Huckabee, 19 S.W.3d at 427. Dale Wamstad redefined the Dallas steakhouse in 1981 when he opened Del Frisco's on Lemmon Avenue. We conclude the Individual Defendants' affidavits negated actual malice. r. Civ. The Article was precisely about that contradiction and thus a continuation of the public discussion of Wamstad's endeavors and disputes. Rumore filed suit following the sale, claiming she was duped out of her share of the proceeds generated by the restaurant they founded and then developed in New Orleans in the early 1980s. Wamstad named as defendants parties associated with the media as well as individuals. r. Civ. 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. The divorce court thus disagreed with the trial court's determination, in the previous criminal trial, that Rumore acted in self-defense. 2000). Wilson was not a public-figure case, that court applied federal procedural standards, and in a cryptic discussion it used the general term malice, giving no indication it was applying the constitutional actual malice standard that we must apply here. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678-79 (Tex. Thus, the issue of credibility does not preclude summary judgment on the issue of actual malice. Wamstad is a classic case of a shrewd business guy from out of town who got under the skin of corrupt local public servants. They have also lived in Richardson, TX and Dallas, TX. Most, if not all of the statements about Wamstad in the Article were corroborated, either by prior sworn court testimony or by other witnesses, and based on the similarity of assertions made by the sources, he did not doubt the credibility of any of his sources, including Rumore and Roy Wamstad. Prop. 1969) (proof of utter failure to investigate amounted to no evidence of actual malice). General-purpose public figures are those individuals who have achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety that they become public figures for all purposes and in all contexts. We disagree that no public controversy existed. One article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, entitled Wounded husband called a raging bull, quoted testimony from the trial of at least three witnesses who described instances they witnessed of Wamstad's physical abuse of Rumore before the shooting. We certainly agree that the public debate in this case does not involve matters of great moment in current public life. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 596. Fertel's lawyer asserted he got Wamstad to admit to his connection with, and payments to, the publicist who created the list. In 1996, the Dallas press noted that Wamstad was "known for getting embroiled in legal battles with former business partners and rival steakhouse chains." It is not probative of the Media Defendants' conscious awareness of falsity or whether they subjectively entertained serious doubt as to the truth or falsity of the Statements as reported in the Article. The Court summarized as follows: In a public-figure defamation case, a libel defendant is entitled to summary judgment under rule 166a(c) by negating actual malice as a matter of law. 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. ." It is not probative of the Media Defendants' conscious awareness of falsity or whether they subjectively entertained serious doubt as to the truth or falsity of the Statements as reported in the Article. Although actual malice focuses on the defendant's state of mind, a plaintiff can prove it through objective evidence about the publication's circumstances. See Casso, 776 S.W.2d at 558 (citing New York Times, defining actual malice in public-figure case as term of art, different from the common-law definition of malice). The AP article was picked up by numerous Texas newspapers, as well as newspapers in Charleston, Fort Lauderdale, Chicago, Baton Rouge, and Phoenix. The court can see if the press was covering the debate, reporting what people were saying and uncovering facts and theories to help the public formulate some judgment. Id., quoted approvingly in McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572. WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. Civ. However, leave Dee Lincoln and Del Frisco's . Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex.1984) (reckless conduct not measured by whether reasonably prudent person would have investigated before publishing; must show defendant entertained serious doubts as to truth of publication, citing St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731, 733, 88 S.Ct. Mgmt. 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. 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.