Candace Elliott v. Steve Murdock, 161 Idaho 281

Candace “Andi” Elliott, an outspoken local animal-welfare advocate and former president of a local Humane Society chapter, was publicly critical of animal owners and involved in prior disputes with neighbors and law enforcement.
Steve Murdock called into a radio show where Elliott had commented and stated, referring to her, "Andi’s humane society puts .02% of the money they hit everybody up back into the care of animals."
Elliott sued Murdock for defamation individually and on behalf of her nonprofit, For The Love Of Pets, Inc.; the suit initially alleged seven statements and was narrowed to this single statement on appeal.
The district court granted Murdock summary judgment, struck Elliott’s lengthy declaration and exhibits as largely irrelevant/hearsay/prejudicial, denied additional depositions and amendment of the complaint, and found Elliott and the Foundation to be limited public figures.
On appeal the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed: it held the statement was non-actionable repetition of media reports about humane societies (not a factual assertion about Elliott/the Foundation), or alternatively that Elliott/the Foundation were limited public figures and she failed to show actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was improper	Elliott: the radio statement defamed her and her Foundation and caused lost donations	Murdock: statement repeated public media reports about humane societies and did not refer to Elliott/Foundation or was opinion	Court: affirmed summary judgment for Murdock; statement not defamatory and, alternatively, no actual malice shown
Whether court erred in striking Elliott's declaration/exhibits	Elliott: materials created genuine fact issues on falsity and malice	Murdock: materials were irrelevant, hearsay, prejudicial and cumulative	Court: affirmed striking as irrelevant/hearsay/prejudicial; no abuse of discretion
Whether Elliott/Foundation are public figures and actual malice standard applies	Elliott: not public figures; NYT standard inapplicable	Murdock: Elliott’s longtime public advocacy and the Foundation’s public solicitations make them limited public figures	Court: they are limited public figures on animal-welfare issues; plaintiff failed to show knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard
Whether appellant's appeal is frivolous and fees are warranted	Elliott: appeal challenges district court errors	Murdock: appeal is meritless and asks court to reweigh evidence	Court: appeal frivolous; awarded attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code § 12-121

Clark v. Spokesman–Review, 144 Idaho 427 (discusses elements of defamation and public-figure/actual-malice requirement)
Bandelin v. Pietsch, 98 Idaho 337 (limited-public-figure analysis for participation in particular controversy)
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (individuals may be limited public figures for particular issues)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (actual malice standard for public-figure defamation)
Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266 (standard for admissibility of affidavit evidence on summary judgment)
Gem State Ins. Co. v. Hutchison, 145 Idaho 10 (abuse-of-discretion standard for admitting testimony in summary-judgment context)