Lee v. Traxler, 385 Mont. 354

Four men (Lee, Hagman, Flesch, and a companion) stopped at a Montana rest area on Feb 1, 2013; a custodian and an officer documented beer cans, urine, a crude drawing, and damage to window sills.
The local paper Independent-Observer published three items (Feb 7 brief report; Feb 28 editorial by Traxler with vivid accusations; Mar 21 follow-up noting two men charged). The pieces referred to “four individuals” from Shelby and described vandalism.
Appellants sued Traxler and Independent-Observer for defamatory libel; Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing truth/privilege and lack of damages.
The District Court granted summary judgment for Defendants; plaintiffs appealed only the defamation rulings as to Traxler and the paper.
The Montana Supreme Court reviewed de novo, applied libel statutory requirements and precedent, and focused on whether the publications were false (a necessary element of libel per § 27-1-802, MCA).
The Court concluded the published statements were "essentially truthful" in light of documentary and testimonial evidence and affirmed summary judgment for Defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court erred by granting summary judgment on defamation	Independent-Observer’s articles falsely accused the group (and specifically certain members) of vandalism and criminal acts; falsity and harm exist	Articles were true or essentially truthful given officer and custodian evidence; thus no libel	No error; summary judgment affirmed (publications not false)
Whether the publications were capable of defamatory meaning and aimed at plaintiffs	Plaintiffs argued articles imputed criminal/vandal conduct to them individually	Defendants argued articles referred generally to a group and were factually supported	Court treated pleading but resolved dispositively on truth: publications were essentially truthful
Whether falsity was a triable issue requiring a jury	Plaintiffs: truth/falsity not overwhelmingly established; jury should decide	Defendants: record evidence overwhelmingly supports truth, permitting summary judgment	Court: evidence so overwhelming that no reasonable jury could find falsity; decided as matter of law
Whether Court needed to reach First Amendment/privilege issues	Plaintiffs: constitutional/privilege defenses did not negate falsity question	Defendants: constitutional and privilege defenses available but unnecessary if publication true	Court did not reach First Amendment/privilege; disposition based on truthfulness

Hale v. City of Billings, 986 P.2d 413 (Mont. 1999) (trial court may grant summary judgment in libel cases only when evidence makes truth so overwhelming that no jury could reasonably find otherwise)
McConkey v. Flathead Elec. Coop., 125 P.3d 1121 (Mont. 2005) (court preliminarily determines whether communication is capable of a defamatory meaning)
Pilgeram v. GreenPoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 313 P.3d 839 (Mont. 2013) (standard of review for de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
McLeod v. State, 206 P.3d 956 (Mont. 2009) (privilege analysis in defamation context)
Griffin v. Opinion Publishing Co., 138 P.2d 580 (Mont. 1943) (court and jury roles in libel trials; court decides demurrers and admissibility, jury decides facts)
Tindal v. Konitz Contracting, 783 P.2d 1376 (Mont. 1989) (construction of defamatory words by their usual, popular and natural meaning)