AUVIL v. CBS 60 MINUTES

No. 93-35963.

67 F.3d 816 (1995)

Grady AUVIL and Lillie Auvil, husband and wife; Robert Bernath and Cathy Bernath, husband and wife; Robert Brody and Charlotte Brody, husband and wife; Burt Chestnut and Elly Chestnut, husband and wife; Harold Cox and Lorraine Cox, husband and wife; Ferrell Deen and Peggy Deen, husband and wife; Charles Drake and Maxine Drake, d/b/a Frosty Red Orchard, Inc., husband and wife; James Eddie, d/b/a Eddie Farms, Inc.; Paul Hudson, a married man on behalf of his separate property; Bert Stennes and Evelyn Stennes, husband and wife, d/b/a Squaw Creek Ranch, Inc.; Norman Wilson and Wanda Wilson, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CBS "60 MINUTES", a foreign corporation; Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), a foreign corporation; Retlaw Enterprises, Inc., a corporation, d/b/a KIMA Television; Bonneville International Corporation, a corporation, d/b/a Kiro Television; King Broadcasting Company, a corporation, d/b/a KREM Television, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Decided October 2, 1995.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Scott A. Jonsson, Peter A. Ozanne, Mildred J. Carmack, Steve C. Morasch, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Portland, Oregon, for plaintiffs-appellants.

P. Cameron DeVore, Bruce E.H. Johnson, Christopher Pesce, William C. Komaroff, Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle, Washington, and Douglas P. Jacobs, Susanna M. Lowy, Anthony M. Bongiorno, CBS Inc., New York City, for defendants-appellees.

Richard A. Samp, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC, for amicus Washington Legal Foundation.

Lee Levine, Ross, Dixon & Masback, Washington, DC, for amicus Capital Cities, et al.

Michael B. Trister, Lichtman, Trister, Singer & Ross, Washington, DC, for amicus J. Routt Reigart, M.D.

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for amicus National Wildlife Federation, et al.

Before: WOOD, Jr., HUG, and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.


PER CURIAM:

Grady and Lillie Auvil et al., suing on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated Washington State apple growers ("growers"), appeal from the district court's summary judgment in favor of CBS "60 Minutes" ("CBS"). The district court held that the growers failed to prove the falsity of the message conveyed by the "60 Minutes" broadcast of "`A' is for Apple," which concerned the use of Alar, a chemical sprayed on apples.1

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases