## Facts

- Glenn E. Bandelin, a North Idaho attorney and former state legislator, was appointed guardian of Muriel I. Talbot’s person and estate after she was found incompetent.
- After Talbot died, Bandelin delayed initiating final accounting proceedings; the district court found his estate management “negligent in the extreme” and ordered contempt proceedings initiated.
- The *Sandpoint News-Bulletin* ran extensive coverage of the guardianship-related litigation in multiple consecutive editions.
- Two articles (Aug. 19 and Aug. 26) incorrectly stated that Bandelin had been “judged in contempt,” even though the contempt matter had not yet been tried at the time of publication.
- Bandelin was later held in contempt, but the contempt conviction was reversed on procedural grounds; the paper accurately reported these later developments but did not retract the earlier errors.
- Bandelin sued the newspaper, its publisher, and the reporter for libel and invasion of privacy based on the inaccurate and repeated reporting.

## Issues

1. Whether Bandelin was a public figure (at least for a limited purpose) concerning reporting about the guardianship controversy, requiring proof of actual malice.
2. Whether the record created a triable issue that defendants published the false “judged in contempt” statements with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth), precluding summary judgment.
3. Whether the repeated coverage of the judicial proceedings supported an invasion-of-privacy claim despite First Amendment protections for reporting newsworthy court matters.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on both libel and invasion of privacy.
- The court treated Bandelin as at least a limited-purpose public figure in the context of the reported controversy.
- Because Bandelin was a public figure, he was required to show actual malice; the evidence showed, at most, mistake or negligence about procedural status.
- The invasion-of-privacy claim failed because the publications concerned newsworthy judicial proceedings and matters of public record, and the record did not show actionable conduct beyond the defamation allegations.

## Legal Principles

- A public figure (including a limited-purpose public figure) must prove “actual malice” to recover for defamatory falsehoods: publication with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false.
- Falsity, repetition, and failure to retract, without evidence that the publisher subjectively doubted the truth at the time of publication, do not alone establish actual malice.
- Reporting on judicial proceedings and other matters of legitimate public interest is strongly protected; publicity-based privacy claims generally fail where the facts are drawn from public records and are newsworthy.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because Bandelin was a limited-purpose public figure regarding the guardianship controversy and the summary-judgment record did not support a finding of actual malice; the privacy claim also failed because the reporting concerned newsworthy court proceedings and public records.


Bandelin v. Pietsch, 563 P.2d 395 (Idaho 1977)