History
  • No items yet
midpage
2018 Ohio 1335
Ohio Ct. App.
2018
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiff Dale Puruczky sued Edmund Corsi for defamation, tortious interference, unfair business practices, and sought injunctive relief, alleging Corsi sent a letter to entities criticizing Puruczky and accusing him of passing bad checks.
  • Puruczky obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) beginning January 23, 2017, later extended; a preliminary-injunction hearing was scheduled for February 14, 2017.
  • Special process service was requested February 8 and, according to the record, Corsi was served on February 10, 2017; the service return did not clearly show which documents (including the notice of hearing) were actually served.
  • Corsi and his counsel did not appear at the February 14 hearing; Puruczky testified and the trial court entered a preliminary injunction February 15, 2017, broadly enjoining Corsi from contacting numerous entities and from engaging in "malicious, defamatory, libel and tortious conduct" against Puruczky.
  • Corsi appealed, arguing (1) the injunction is a prior restraint violating the First Amendment, (2) the injunction was unsupported by the hearing evidence, and (3) he was denied due process because he received only two business days’ notice of the preliminary-injunction hearing. The appellate court reversed and vacated the injunction and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether two business days’ notice of the preliminary-injunction hearing satisfied due process Puruczky relied on docketing and prior TROs; argued notice was sufficient Corsi argued notice was inadequate and he lacked meaningful time to prepare or appear Held: Notice was insufficient; two business days (four calendar days) was not reasonably calculated to afford a meaningful opportunity to be heard; reversible error
Whether the injunction constituted an impermissible prior restraint on speech Puruczky argued the injunction targeted defamatory/unprotected speech and prevented harm to his business Corsi argued the injunction was overbroad, enjoining protected speech and contact with the public Held: The injunction, as entered, acted as a broad prior restraint on speech (including public speech) and violated First Amendment principles absent a prior judicial determination that the speech was unprotected
Whether the TRO/PI was supported by the evidence presented at the hearing Puruczky pointed to testimony about reputational harm and the alleged letter Corsi contended the record lacked proof the letter was disseminated or that irreparable harm was shown Held: Appellate court did not decide merits because due-process and First Amendment defects required vacatur and remand; trial-court merits determination was improper without full hearing and findings
Proper remedy and next steps Puruczky sought continuation of protections against further defamatory communications Corsi sought vacatur of the injunction and a new hearing with adequate notice Held: Court reversed and vacated the PI, remanded for a properly noticed hearing; trial court must conduct an O’Brien-style hearing (with findings) and may not enjoin public speech absent prior judicial determination that the speech is unprotected

Key Cases Cited

  • Natl. Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) (prior restraints require strict procedural safeguards and immediate appellate review)
  • Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984) (judicial review required to ensure speech falls within unprotected categories before restraint)
  • Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (prior restraints are the most serious infringement on First Amendment rights)
  • O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 327 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 1975) (judicial determination that specific speech is defamatory must be made prior to any restraint)
  • Toledo Blade Co. v. Henry Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 926 N.E.2d 634 (Ohio 2010) (heavy presumption against constitutional validity of prior restraints)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Puruczky v. Corsi
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Apr 9, 2018
Citations: 2018 Ohio 1335; 110 N.E.3d 73; NO. 2017–G–0110
Docket Number: NO. 2017–G–0110
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
Log In
    Puruczky v. Corsi, 2018 Ohio 1335