Main v. Royall, 348 S.W.3d 381

Royall sued Carla Main and The Encounter for Culture and Education, Inc. for libel based on the book BULLDOZED, alleging defamatory statements about him in the marina-eminent-domain narrative.
The book discusses Freeport, Texas, Western Seafood, the Gore family, and Royall’s involvement in a marina project tied to eminent domain and development.
Main and Encounter moved for no-evidence summary judgment and traditional partial summary judgment; the trial court denied both motions, prompting this interlocutory appeal.
The issue framed is whether the defendants are “members of the electronic or print media” under § 51.014(a)(6) such that an interlocutory appeal is proper, and whether First Amendment defenses underpin the motions.
The court ultimately holds authors/publishers of traditional books qualify as media under the statute and that the defenses invoked established jurisdiction, while reviewing the merits of the no-evidence analysis.
The court reverses and renders on grounds 1–79 (granting Royall no relief on those grounds) and affirms on grounds 80–83, remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Main and Encounter are 'members of the electronic or print media' under § 51.014(a)(6).	Royall contends authors/publishers are not within the statute's media scope.	Main and Encounter are within the media scope, including traditional book authors/publishers.	Yes; authors/publishers of traditional books fall within the statute.
Whether defenses under the First Amendment or Chapter 73 support jurisdiction for this interlocutory appeal.	Royall argues no First Amendment/Chapter 73 basis for appeal.	Motions relied on First Amendment and Chapter 73 defenses, triggering § 51.014(a)(6).	Jurisdiction exists based on those defenses.
Whether the no-evidence motion for summary judgment should have been granted as to Royall's defamation claims.	Royall produced more than a scintilla of evidence on many grounds; the gist and individual statements were contested.	Royall failed to show a genuine issue of material fact for a large number of grounds.	The trial court erred; the court rendered judgment against Royall on grounds 1–79.
Whether the statements were 'concerning' Royall to support actionable defamation.	Specific pages and statements directly referenced Royall by name or reasonably pointed to him.	Many statements did not meaningfully refer to Royall; most grounds failed to connect to Royall.	26 grounds were proven to be concerning Royall; 52 grounds were not, with remand for further proceedings as appropriate.

Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1991) (applies First Amendment standards to book authors/publishers)
Doubleday & Co. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751 (Tex. 1984) (applies First Amendment standards to defamation from books)
WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998) (defamation elements and standards for private individuals/public figures)
Cassidy v. City of San Antonio, 946 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1997) (interlocutory appeals under § 51.014(a)(6) interpretation)
Quebe v. Pope, 201 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (interpretation of 'published' under the statute)
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (U.S. 2005) (eminent domain public-use discussion relevant to the book's subject)
Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. 2000) (gist vs. precise factuality in defamation context)
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1991) (defamation standard when evaluating statements as facts or opinions)
Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (defamatory meaning whether statements convey facts or protected opinion)