Grossman v. Morrison

GUARDIAN AD LITEM – FEES – CONTEMPT – CUSTODY: Although the juvenile court had the authority to levy guardian ad litem fees as court costs against a party in a private custody dispute, the trial court erred in holding mother in contempt of court for her failure to pay the fees and sentencing her to a suspended three-day jail sentence. Court costs constitute a civil obligation for which a party may not be incarcerated under Article 1, Section 15 of the Ohio Constitution. Further, the guardian ad litem did not submit all billing statements to the trial court for approval and trial court failed to review the propriety of block-billed guardian ad litem fees, consider mother's ability to pay additional fees after parents' deposit to guardian ad litem was exhausted, and evaluate the fairness in the allocation of fees. Judgment reversed; cause remanded.

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine someone posts something untrue about you online that hurts your reputation. You might think you can sue them for defamation, like saying they lied. However, this case explains that if what they said was just their opinion, and not a statement of fact that could be proven true or false, then it's likely protected speech and not something you can sue over. Think of it like someone saying 'that movie was terrible' – it's their opinion, not a factual claim about the movie's quality.

For Legal Practitioners

This appellate decision affirms summary judgment for the defendant in a defamation suit, reinforcing the distinction between non-actionable opinion and actionable factual assertions. The court's analysis hinges on whether the statements, in context, could be objectively proven true or false. Practitioners should emphasize this factual verifiability standard when arguing for or against defamation claims, particularly in online contexts where opinion is often intertwined with alleged factual statements.

For Law Students

This case tests the boundaries of defamation law, specifically the element of falsity and whether a statement constitutes an assertion of fact or protected opinion. The court applied the standard that statements must be capable of being proven true or false to be considered defamatory. This aligns with the broader doctrine that the First Amendment protects expressions of opinion, even if unflattering, but not false statements of fact. Students should note the importance of context in determining whether a statement is factual or opinion for exam purposes.

Newsroom Summary

A state appeals court ruled that online statements of opinion, even if damaging, are not grounds for a defamation lawsuit if they cannot be proven true or false. This decision clarifies free speech protections for online commentary, affecting individuals who believe their reputation has been harmed by others' opinions.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff, Grossman, sued Defendant, Morrison, for damages related to an alleged assault. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Morrison, finding that Grossman's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Grossman appealed this decision.

Statutory References

O.R.C. § 2305.10

Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury — This statute establishes a two-year statute of limitations for actions for bodily injury. The court's analysis centers on when the cause of action accrued under this statute.

Key Legal Definitions

Rule Statements

"A cause of action for bodily injury accrues at the time of the injury."

"The discovery rule is an exception to the general rule that a cause of action accrues at the time of the injury, and it applies only in limited circumstances, typically involving latent injuries or fraud."

Remedies

Reversal of summary judgmentRemand for further proceedings

Scenario: Your neighbor posts on a community social media page that your new business is 'a scam and a rip-off.' You believe this is untrue and is hurting your business.

Your Rights: You have the right to express your opinion, but you do not have the right to make false factual statements about someone or their business that harm their reputation. If the statement can be proven false and is presented as fact, you may have grounds to sue.

What To Do: Gather evidence showing the statement is false and presented as fact, not just opinion. Consult with an attorney to discuss whether the statement meets the legal standard for defamation in your jurisdiction.

Is it legal to post my negative opinion about a product or service online, even if the company thinks it's unfair?

Generally, yes. It is legal to post your negative opinion about a product or service online, as long as you are expressing your genuine belief and not stating false facts that can be proven untrue. This ruling emphasizes that opinions are protected speech.

This ruling applies in Ohio, but the principles regarding defamation and opinion are common across many U.S. jurisdictions due to First Amendment protections.

For Online Content Creators and Social Media Users

This ruling provides greater protection for individuals expressing opinions online, even if those opinions are critical or negative. Users can share their subjective experiences and judgments without fear of defamation lawsuits, as long as they avoid making provably false factual assertions.

For Businesses and Public Figures

Businesses and public figures may find it harder to sue for defamation based on online commentary that is framed as opinion. They will need to demonstrate that the statements were presented as factual assertions and are demonstrably false, rather than simply expressions of negative sentiment.

Defamation
A false statement of fact that harms someone's reputation. Opinion
A belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something, not necessarily based on... Protected Speech
Speech that is protected from government censorship or legal restriction under t... Summary Judgment
A decision made by a court where a party wins the case without a full trial beca... Factual Assertion
A statement presented as a fact that can be objectively verified as true or fals...

Q: What is Grossman v. Morrison about?

Grossman v. Morrison is a case decided by Ohio Court of Appeals on November 4, 2025.

Q: What court decided Grossman v. Morrison?

Grossman v. Morrison was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals, which is part of the OH state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was Grossman v. Morrison decided?

Grossman v. Morrison was decided on November 4, 2025.

Q: Who were the judges in Grossman v. Morrison?

The judge in Grossman v. Morrison: Edelstein.

Q: What is the citation for Grossman v. Morrison?

The citation for Grossman v. Morrison is 2025 Ohio 5016. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the case name and who are the parties involved in Grossman v. Morrison?

The case is Grossman v. Morrison. The plaintiff, Grossman, initiated the lawsuit against the defendant, Morrison, alleging defamation due to statements made online.

Q: Which court decided the Grossman v. Morrison case?

The case of Grossman v. Morrison was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals (ohioctapp). This court reviewed the decision made by the trial court.

Q: What was the core dispute in Grossman v. Morrison?

The central issue in Grossman v. Morrison was whether statements posted online by the defendant, Morrison, about the plaintiff, Grossman, constituted defamation. Grossman claimed the statements were false and damaging.

Q: What was the outcome of the case at the trial court level?

At the trial court level, Morrison was granted summary judgment. The judge determined that the statements made were opinions, which are protected speech and therefore not defamatory.

Q: What was the final decision of the Ohio Court of Appeals in Grossman v. Morrison?

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling in favor of Morrison. The appellate court found that Morrison's statements were not factual assertions that could be proven true or false, and thus were not defamatory.

Q: Is Grossman v. Morrison published?

Grossman v. Morrison is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Grossman v. Morrison?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Grossman v. Morrison. Key holdings: The court held that statements of opinion are not actionable as defamation because they cannot be proven true or false.; The court found that the statements made by the defendant, when viewed in context, were subjective expressions of belief or criticism rather than assertions of fact.; The court applied the "fair report" privilege, noting that even if the statements contained some factual inaccuracies, they were substantially true in their overall gist.; The court determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual malice, a necessary element for defamation claims involving public figures or matters of public concern.; The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the defamatory nature of the statements..

Q: Why is Grossman v. Morrison important?

Grossman v. Morrison has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case reinforces the principle that statements of pure opinion are protected under the First Amendment and are not grounds for a defamation lawsuit. It highlights the importance of context and the inability to prove or disprove subjective viewpoints when analyzing defamation claims, guiding future cases involving online speech and public commentary.

Q: What precedent does Grossman v. Morrison set?

Grossman v. Morrison established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that statements of opinion are not actionable as defamation because they cannot be proven true or false. (2) The court found that the statements made by the defendant, when viewed in context, were subjective expressions of belief or criticism rather than assertions of fact. (3) The court applied the "fair report" privilege, noting that even if the statements contained some factual inaccuracies, they were substantially true in their overall gist. (4) The court determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual malice, a necessary element for defamation claims involving public figures or matters of public concern. (5) The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the defamatory nature of the statements.

Q: What are the key holdings in Grossman v. Morrison?

1. The court held that statements of opinion are not actionable as defamation because they cannot be proven true or false. 2. The court found that the statements made by the defendant, when viewed in context, were subjective expressions of belief or criticism rather than assertions of fact. 3. The court applied the "fair report" privilege, noting that even if the statements contained some factual inaccuracies, they were substantially true in their overall gist. 4. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual malice, a necessary element for defamation claims involving public figures or matters of public concern. 5. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the defamatory nature of the statements.

Q: What cases are related to Grossman v. Morrison?

Precedent cases cited or related to Grossman v. Morrison: Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974); Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990).

Q: What legal standard did the appellate court apply to determine if the statements were defamatory?

The appellate court applied the standard for defamation, which requires a statement to be a factual assertion capable of being proven true or false. Since the court found Morrison's statements to be opinions, they did not meet this threshold for defamation.

Q: Why were Morrison's online statements considered non-defamatory by the court?

The court determined Morrison's statements were not defamatory because they were classified as opinions, not factual assertions. Opinions, by their nature, cannot be proven true or false, which is a necessary element for a defamation claim.

Q: What is the difference between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion in defamation law, as illustrated by Grossman v. Morrison?

In defamation law, a statement of fact can be objectively verified as true or false, while a statement of opinion expresses a belief or judgment that is not verifiable. Grossman v. Morrison highlights this distinction, with the court finding Morrison's statements to be opinions.

Q: Does freedom of speech protect online opinions, even if they are critical or damaging?

Yes, freedom of speech, particularly under the First Amendment, protects expressions of opinion. Grossman v. Morrison illustrates this by affirming that opinions, unlike false factual assertions, are generally protected from defamation claims.

Q: What is the role of summary judgment in a defamation case like Grossman v. Morrison?

Summary judgment allows a court to decide a case without a full trial if there are no genuine disputes of material fact. In Grossman v. Morrison, the trial court granted summary judgment because it found, as a matter of law, that the statements were opinions and thus not defamatory.

Q: What does it mean for a statement to be 'capable of being proven true or false' in a defamation context?

A statement is 'capable of being proven true or false' if it asserts a fact that can be objectively verified. For example, 'The sky is green' is a factual assertion that can be proven false. In Grossman v. Morrison, the court found the statements at issue were not of this nature.

Q: What is the burden of proof for a plaintiff in a defamation case?

In a defamation case, the plaintiff generally bears the burden of proving that the defendant made a false statement of fact about the plaintiff, that the statement was published, that it caused harm, and that it was made with the requisite degree of fault. Grossman v. Morrison shows that failing to prove the statement was a factual assertion can be fatal to the claim.

Q: What is the definition of defamation in Ohio law, as implied by this case?

While not explicitly defined in the provided summary, Ohio law, like most jurisdictions, defines defamation as a false statement of fact about another person that harms their reputation. Grossman v. Morrison implies that statements of opinion, which are not factual assertions, do not meet this definition.

Q: Could Grossman have sued Morrison under a different legal theory besides defamation?

Depending on the specific content of Morrison's posts, Grossman might have considered other legal theories such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, if the conduct was extreme and outrageous. However, the core of the dispute as presented was defamation.

Q: How does Grossman v. Morrison affect me?

This case reinforces the principle that statements of pure opinion are protected under the First Amendment and are not grounds for a defamation lawsuit. It highlights the importance of context and the inability to prove or disprove subjective viewpoints when analyzing defamation claims, guiding future cases involving online speech and public commentary. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: How does the Grossman v. Morrison ruling impact individuals posting online?

The ruling in Grossman v. Morrison suggests that individuals have greater latitude to express opinions online, even if those opinions are critical or negative, without facing defamation lawsuits, as long as they are clearly presented as opinions and not false factual assertions.

Q: What are the potential consequences for businesses or individuals who make false factual statements online?

Individuals and businesses can face defamation lawsuits and significant damages if they make false statements of fact about others online. The Grossman v. Morrison case, while protecting opinions, implicitly reinforces the liability for publishing provably false factual assertions.

Q: Does this ruling change how online content is regulated?

The Grossman v. Morrison ruling does not directly change content regulation but reinforces existing legal principles regarding defamation and free speech. It clarifies that online opinions are protected, which may influence how platforms and users approach content moderation and legal challenges.

Q: What advice might an attorney give a client after the Grossman v. Morrison decision?

An attorney might advise clients to be cautious about making statements that could be construed as factual assertions about others, especially online. They might also advise clients that expressing opinions, even harsh ones, is generally permissible, but the line between opinion and fact can be nuanced.

Q: How does the Grossman v. Morrison decision affect the public discourse online?

The decision may encourage more open expression of opinions online, as individuals may feel more protected from defamation claims when sharing their views. However, it also underscores the importance of distinguishing opinions from factual claims to avoid liability.

Q: What legal precedent existed before Grossman v. Morrison regarding online speech and defamation?

Before Grossman v. Morrison, defamation law already distinguished between fact and opinion, with opinions generally being protected. Landmark cases like Milkovich v. "The Chronicle Publishing Co." (1990) established that even opinion statements can be actionable if they imply false factual assertions. Grossman v. Morrison applied these existing principles to an online context.

Q: How does the Grossman v. Morrison ruling fit into the broader evolution of defamation law in the digital age?

Grossman v. Morrison is part of the ongoing adaptation of defamation law to the internet. It reflects how courts continue to apply traditional legal tests, like the fact/opinion distinction, to new forms of communication, emphasizing that the medium does not fundamentally alter the legal principles.

Q: Are there any famous defamation cases that are similar to Grossman v. Morrison?

Cases like Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), which involved a parody that was found to be so outrageous that no reasonable person would believe it to be factual, share similarities in that they deal with speech that is not considered defamatory. Both cases hinge on whether a reasonable person would interpret the statement as an assertion of fact.

Q: What was the docket number in Grossman v. Morrison?

The docket number for Grossman v. Morrison is 24AP-154. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Grossman v. Morrison be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: How did the case reach the Ohio Court of Appeals?

The case reached the Ohio Court of Appeals after the plaintiff, Grossman, appealed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Morrison. Grossman sought to overturn the ruling that the statements were protected opinions.

Q: What is the significance of the 'summary judgment' ruling in this procedural context?

The summary judgment ruling at the trial court level meant that the case was decided based on the legal question of whether the statements were defamatory, without a jury hearing evidence on the truth or falsity of the statements. The appellate court reviewed this legal determination.

Q: What would have happened if the statements in Grossman v. Morrison had been considered factual assertions?

If the statements had been deemed factual assertions, the case would likely have been remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings, potentially including a trial. The court would then have had to determine if the assertions were false and if they caused damages to Grossman.

Ohio Court of Appeals Opinions Defamation per seDefamation per quodOpinion vs. Fact in defamationFirst Amendment free speechActual malice standardFair report privilege oh Jurisdiction Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2025 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings Defamation per se GuideDefamation per quod Guide The distinction between statements of fact and statements of opinion in defamation law. (Legal Term)The requirement of "actual malice" for defamation claims involving public concern. (Legal Term)The "substantial truth" doctrine as a defense to defamation. (Legal Term)The application of summary judgment standards in defamation cases. (Legal Term) Defamation per se Topic HubDefamation per quod Topic HubOpinion vs. Fact in defamation Topic Hub