## Facts

- Melvin M. Belli, a nationally known plaintiffs’ lawyer, sued an Orlando newspaper, its columnist Jean Yothers, Orlando lawyer Leon Handley, and others.
- Handley told Yothers a story that Belli had agreed to speak at a Florida Bar convention on the understanding the Bar would cover the hotel charges for Belli and his wife.
- Handley claimed the Bar later discovered the Bellis had charged substantial clothing purchases to their hotel room.
- The derogatory charge was alleged to be false; the Bellis had not charged purchases to their hotel account.
- Yothers published the story in a gossip column, stating in substance that the “plan backfired,” the Bar “had been taken,” and “that was the plan,” implying intentional misconduct.
- Belli alleged the statements were false, harmed him in his profession, and were part of a conspiracy to defame him.

## Issues

1. Whether the publication was so clearly non-defamatory that the complaint could be dismissed as a matter of law at the pleading stage.
2. Whether, when language is capable of both defamatory and non-defamatory meanings, the meaning must be determined by the jury rather than the judge.
3. Whether constitutional protections for commentary about a public figure required dismissal, and what preliminary determinations are necessary before applying any “actual malice” requirement.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the column was capable of a defamatory meaning because a reasonable reader could understand it as accusing Belli of trickery or dishonesty toward the Florida Bar.
- Because the language could reasonably bear both an innocent and a defamatory meaning, the determination of the meaning conveyed was for the jury based on all circumstances.
- The court declined to hold, on the pleadings, that constitutional defenses barred the claim; on remand, the trial court was to determine Belli’s status (including whether he was a public figure) and the applicable constitutional standard before resolving any privilege or fault requirements.

## Legal Principles

- A court may decide defamatory character as a matter of law only when the publication is unambiguous and reasonably bears only one meaning.
- If a statement is reasonably capable of two meanings—one defamatory and one not—the jury determines the meaning the publication conveyed in context.
- Under Florida defamation law, a false and unprivileged publication that tends to harm a person in his profession may be actionable without proof of special damages (libel per se), depending on how the publication is understood.
- First Amendment defenses in defamation cases involving prominent individuals generally require preliminary determinations (e.g., public-figure status and public-interest subject matter) and do not eliminate the jury’s role on factual questions such as meaning where the publication is ambiguous.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that an allegedly false newspaper column implying a lawyer intentionally “took” a bar association could reasonably be read as defamatory, making dismissal on the pleadings improper; the case was remanded for a jury to determine the meaning and for the trial court to address any constitutional defenses under the appropriate standard.


Belli v. Orlando Daily Newspapers, Inc., 389 F.2d 579 (5th Cir. 1967)