The record contains numerous references to Wamstad throughout the 1990s, many appearing in the restaurant critic columns, which make frequent references to Wamstad personally. Id., quoted approvingly in McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572. 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. The Casso court went on to explain that the plaintiff must offer, at trial, clear and convincing affirmative proof of actual malice. We conclude that evidence is merely cumulative of Wamstad's testimony asserting Rumore's allegations are false. Whether a party is a public figure is a question of constitutional law for courts to decide. In an extensive affidavit, Stuertz stated the following, among other things: In researching for the Article, he interviewed at least nineteen people, reviewed numerous court documents (listing fifty-seven documents), court transcripts, and numerous newspaper articles concerning Wamstad (listing forty-eight newspaper articles). I probably deserve it. It is not enough for the jury to disbelieve the libel defendant's testimony. Julie Lyons stated the following in her affidavit: She was aware of the numerous sources for the Article, including court documents and sworn court testimony. The record evidence shows that around the time Rumore was tried for shooting Wamstad, in 1986, he began to receive considerable press attention concerning his domestic life. Lena Rumore, ex-wife of Dallas steakhouse mogul Dale Wamstad (III Forks, Del Frisco's), will get a shot at the skillful restaurateur's beefy wallet. Our review of the record shows that after Williams was deposed, he testified by affidavit, stating that he went over at least two drafts of the Article with Stuertz, who answered all of his questions, and that the Article went through the standard, detailed process for editing and revision. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d at 572-73. denied) (defendant's testimony established plausible basis for professed belief in truth of publication, thus negating actual malice even if publication not substantially correct). See Howell v. Hecht, 821 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, writ denied) (concluding similar language negated actual malice). Having negated an essential element of Wamstad's cause of action, Defendant-Appellants are entitled to summary judgment. 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). Although at trial the libel plaintiff must establish actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, at the summary judgment stage the court applies the traditional summary-judgment jurisprudence in testing whether the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact. That Court noted the mere fact that a libel defendant knows that the libel plaintiff denies an allegation is not evidence that the defendant doubted the allegation. For example, in the fall of 1989, the Dallas press carried at least four articles discussing the business-turned-legal dispute between Wamstad and Mike Piper, his former attorney, after Piper acquired a Del Frisco's restaurant from Wamstad. Having invited public rebuttal concerning his persona, Wamstad took on the status of a limited public figure with respect to his behavior in business and family matters. Wamstad opened III Forks in August 1998 and sold it in July 2000. Although at trial the libel plaintiff must establish actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, at the summary judgment stage the court applies the traditional summary-judgment jurisprudence in testing whether the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact.

Niebaum Coppola Family Select, Prager Restaurants Easton, Md, Articles D