# Wampler v. Higgins

> Ohio Supreme Court · August 29, 2001 · 93 Ohio St. 3d 111

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783040

## Case

- **Full name:** Wampler v. Higgins
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 29, 2001
- **Citations:** 93 Ohio St. 3d 111; 752 N.E.2d 962
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pfeifer
- **Judges:** Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney, Syllabus
- **Cited by:** 108 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783040

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting the specific language at issue, "with Higgins describing Wampler as a 'ruthless spectator' possessed of 'self-centered greed,' " were phrases which were "all inherently imprecise and subject to myriad subjective interpretations"

## Opinion text

Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting. Circleville is still a small town, small enough, at least, that anyone who truly cared could quickly learn whether what Higgins wrote about Wampler was true. Also, most people are smart enough to look at who’s *133 doing the squawking before they draw any conclusions about the person being squawked about. That’s part of the beauty of small-town life.
Cooper & Elliot, Charles H. Cooper, Jr., Rex H. Elliot and Aaron D. Epstein, for appellant.
McGrath & Breitfeller, L.L.P., and Thomas R. McGrath; and James K. Hill, for appellee.
But this case has implications beyond the corner of Scioto and West Main. Thus, I dissent and reiterate my statements in Vail v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 279, 285-287 , 649 N.E.2d 182, 187-189 (Pfeifer, J., concurring in judgment only), that the Ohio Constitution does not create an additional, separate constitutional privilege for opinion. Instead we should look at whether the statements made are provably false or whether the statements can be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), 497 U.S. 1, 19-20 , 110 S.Ct. 2695, 2706 , 111 L.Ed.2d 1, 18-19 . In this case, I believe that there are enough statements within Higgins’s hyperbole that either are provable as false or could be interpreted as stating actual facts about Wampler that Wampler should have survived summary judgment.
In the end, Wampler may have suffered a few dollars worth of damages — or whatever the going rate is for an apology.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783040. Public record. Not legal advice.