 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT DEFENDANTS ALLEGE TEXAS PARAGRAPH DEFENDANTS DENY ALLEGATIONS CONSTITUTION DAMAGES UNITED STATES HARPO PRODUCTION ILLINOIS OPRAH WINFREY CATTLE PUBLICATION DEFENDANTS ADMIT LAW EXEMPLARY DAMAGES NEGLIGENCE AMENDMENT COURT DRIPPING SPRINGS CATTLE BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES PRAC CJD STATUTE BSE INDUSTRY |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
TEXAS BEEF GROUP, PERRYTON
FEEDERS, INC., MALTESE CROSS
CATTLE COMPANY, BRAVO CATTLE
COMPANY, ALPHA 3 CATTLE § CIVIL ACTION CAUSE NUMBER
COMPANY, PAUL F. ENGLER,
CACTUS FEEDERS, INC., § 2:97-CV-147-J
AND DRIPPING SPRINGS CATTLE
COMPANY,
Plaintiffs, §§ CONSOLIDATED WITH
vs. §§ 2:96-CV-233-J
OPRAH WINFREY, § 2:96-CV-208-J
HARPO PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
HOWARD LYMAN, and
KING WORLD PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
OPRAH WINFREY AND HARPO PRODUCTIONS, INC'S ORIGINAL ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF DRIPPING SPRINGS CATTLE COMPANY'S
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Oprah Winfrey and Harpo Production, Inc., Defendants ("Defendants") in the
entitled and numbered action files this their Original Answer to Plaintiff Dripping Springs Cattle
Company's Original Complaint as follows:
A. Nature of the Lawsuit
1. Defendants admit that Plaintiff is located in the Texas Panhandle. Defendants
the remaining allegations of Paragraph I.
OPRAH WINFREY AND HARPO PRODUCTION, INC.'S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF
DRIPPING SPRINGS CATTLE COMPANY'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
l646005:NWH
B. Parties
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
Government Exhibit # 5TH CIRCUIT OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CATTLE MAD COW DISEASE OPRAH WINFREY BEEF BSE FED CATTLE FOOD PRODUCT TEX CIV PRAC REM APPELLEES BRITAIN CJD CONSUMPTION AMERICAN BEEF UNITED STATES BROADCAST PLAINTIFF PERISHABLE FOOD PRODUCT DANGEROUS FOOD BUSINESS DISPARAGEMENT DISSEMINATED FALSE INFORMATION LIVE CATTLE AGRICULTURE RUMINANT-TO-RUMINANT FEEDING MARKETABILITY KNOWINGLY DISSEMINATED FALSE DISPARAGING STATEMENT |
Texas Beef Group
v.
Winfrey
201 F.3d 680
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit
February 9, 2000
PER CURIAM:
At issue in this case is whether The Oprah Winfrey Show and one of its guests knowingly and
falsely depicted American beef as unsafe in the wake of the British panic over "Mad Cow
Disease." The district court doubted that fed cattle are protected by Texas's equivalent of a
"Veggie Libel Law," See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. ' 96.001 et seq. The court alternately held that
no knowingly false statements were made by the appellees. We affirm on the latter ground only
and affirm the court's other rulings.
I. INTRODUCTION
In early 1996, a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease ("CJD") was diagnosed in Britain.
CJD, a form of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy, is a fatal disease that affects the
human brain. On March 20, 1996, the British Ministry of Health announced that scientists had
linked the consumption of beef infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ("BSE") with
this new CJD variant. BSE, or "Mad Cow Disease," had been detected in British cattle as early as
1986 . . . . . . .
The postulated link between the consumption of beef and CJD caused panic in Britain. News
media in the United States ran numerous stories on the subject. Articles appeared in, inter alia,
the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Newsweek. Dateline, a popular, "prime time"
television news program, broadcast a report on the subject. . . . Another report, and the subject
of this suit, was aired on the "Dangerous Food" broadcast of the Oprah Winfrey Show.
Asserting that the beef market suffered substantial losses following the broadcast, several Texas
cattle ranchers sued Oprah Winfrey, the producers and distributors of the Oprah Winfrey Show,
and Howard Lyman, a guest on the show, in Texas state court. The cattlemen alleged violations
of the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. ''
96.001-.004 ("the Act"), and damages arising from the common-law torts of business
disparagement, defamation, negligence, and negligence per se. The cattlemen's suit was removed
to federal court. At the close of the cattlemen's case-in-chief, the district court culled the
of the pending claims, saving only the business disparagement cause of action. This claim was
rejected by the jury, and the cattlemen have appealed. Although we differ with the district court's
reasoning on certain issues, we affirm.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
TEXAS COMMUNICATION AMARILLO PARTIES PUBLICITY DISTRICT COURT JURY W/O ENCLOSURE REPRESENTATIVES ATTORNEYS ABOVE-STYLED ACTION COUNSEL CHARLES BABCOCK PETERSON GARNER TEXAS BEEF GROUP OPRAH WINFREY UNITED STATES ATTENTION MEDIA DUTY IMPARTIAL JURY WITNESSES EMPLOYEES SPOKESPERSONS AGENTS FORBID ESQ |
Abilene
Amarillo
Dallas
Fort Worth
Lubbock
San Angelo
Wichita Falls
Date: December 19, 1997
To: David Mullin - 372-5088
Charles Babcock - 214-953-5822
Barry Peterson - 372-2107
Joseph Coyne - 213/620-1398
Vincent Nowak - 372-5086
Robert Garner - 379-7176
F r o m : Jeanetta Hetrick
U.S. District Court
ND/Texas at Amarillo
Phone Number: 806/324-2352
FAX Number 806/324-2133
Message or special
Instructions : 2:96-cv-208 - Texas Beef Group, et al.
vs. Oprah Winfrey, et al
O R D E R (filed December 19, 1997)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
TEXAS BEEF GROUP
Plaintiff,
PAUL F. ENGLER § Crvrr, ACX?ON NO.
CACTUS FEEDERS, INC. § 2~6CV-29&J
§ Contolidatcd arlth
Plaintiff, § 2:96-W-233-J
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
Government Exhibit # 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFFS PRODUCTIONS PAUL ENGLER CACTUS FEEDERS TEXAS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT PUBLISHING CATTLE BEEF OPRAH WINFREY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS PUBLICATION NEGLIGENCE HOWARD LYMAN COWS INDUSTRY DAMAGES SLANDER INCORPORATE KING HARPO PRODUCTIONS AMERICAN ILLINOIS BROADCAST REFERENCE FOREGOING BUSINESS ANIMALS |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
PAUL F. ENGLER and
CACTUS FEEDERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
VS. § NO. 2-96-CV-233
OPRAH WINFREY,
HARPO PRODUCTIONS, MC.,
HOWARD LYMAN, and
KING WORLD PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Defendants.
THIRD AMENDED COMPLIANT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, PAUL F. ENGLER and CACTUS FEEDERS, MC., Plaintiffs,
complaining of OPRAH WINFREY, HARPO PRODUCTIONS, INC., HOWARD LYMAN
and KING WORLD PRODUCTIONS, INC., Defendants, and would show the Court and jury as
follows:
I.
Nature of the Lawsuit
This lawsuit results from the disparaging, slanderous, and defamatory statements
published on the April 16, 1996, edition of the Oprah Winfrey Show. The carefully and
maliciously edited statements were designed to hype the ratings at the expense of the American
cattle industry. In the stampede to win the ratings race, the truth is often the first to get
trampled. In addition to lambasting the American cattle industry, the statements disparaged the
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - PAGE 1
safety of American beef, and intentionally placed unfounded and unwarranted fear in the beef
consumer's mind. As a direct result of what has been widely called the "Oprah Crash," the cattle
industry suffered millions of dollars in cattle losses and temporary and in some cases permanent
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
