Blackhawk Corp. v. Ewing

California Court of Appeal Jun 29, 1979 No. Civ. 42386Published

Before: Halvonik

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that statements made during a public debate regarding a proposed development project were protected opinions rather than actionable defamation, as they did not accuse the appellant of a crime or personal dishonesty.

Issues

Whether statements made during a public referendum drive regarding a development project constitute actionable defamation or protected opinion.
Whether the truth or falsity of political claims in a public debate is a matter for judicial determination or electorate assessment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The demurrer was properly sustained because respondents’ statements were not, in context, defamatory.”

“Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea.”

“Respondents expressed their opinions about the effects of a proposed housing development on their community. It was for their fellow citizens, not the courts, to judge the merits of those opinions.”

Opinion

HALVONIK, J.

Appellant is the owner of a large parcel of land approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for a planned community development. The project includes 4,800 acres of land, 2,000

[642]

of which are to be dedicated for inclusion in Mt. Diablo State Park. Four thousand two hundred homes are planned for the remainder, with associated recreational and commercial facilities.

No referendum of rezoning was sought but when the board of supervisors approved a special district reorganization, respondents and others opposed to the project launched a referendum drive. They asked voters to sign a petition that would have required the board of supervisors either to repeal their approval of the reorganization or submit the question to the voters.

The board of supervisors rejected the petition and a group calling itself Friends of Mt. Diablo sought a writ of mandate requiring the board to act on the petition. The trial court denied the writ and, on appeal, this court sustained that ruling holding that under the District Reorganization Act (Gov. Code, § 56000 et seq.) the board’s decision was not subject to referendum.

(Friends of Mount Diablo

County of Contra Costa

(1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 1006 [139 Cal.Rptr. 469].)

In the course of circulating the referendum petitions, respondents made statements which, appellant alleges, were false and maliciously so. Respondents said the project would be a “high density” urban development and would require millions of dollars in public subsidies when, according to appellant a low density development was planned which would require no public subsidies. Respondents said the project would be on Mt. Diablo and that the 4,800 acres could be included in the state park when, according to appellant, the project would not actually be on Mt. Diablo and only 2,000 acres of appellant’s land are within the “zone of interest” for the ultimate expansion of the park. Respondents are also accused of misleading the voters when they said that the proposed development would scar Mt. Diablo, that views from Mt. Diablo would be harmed and that the project could be successfully thwarted by means of referendum.

Blackhawk Corp. v. Ewing

AI Brief

HALVONIK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief