D's counterclaim involves five allegedly defamatory statements: (1) P's statement on or about August 9, 2010 that d 'voted for a health care bill that includes taxpayer-funded abortion.'; (2) P's planned billboard, made public on September 28, 2010, which stated: 'D voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.'; (3) P's statement released on October 7, 2010: 'It is a fact that D has voted for a bill that includes taxpayer funding of abortion.'; (4) P's other statement of October 7, 2010 that D 'ordered Lamar Companies not to put up the billboards until the matter was settled by the Ohio Elections Commission.'; and (5) P's radio ad, which started running on or about October 19, 2010, stating: 'D voted for taxpayer funding of abortion when he cast his vote for the health care reform bill . . . D voted for taxpayer funding of abortion.' D alleges that the statements defamed him by impugning his professional reputation as a pro-life Member of Congress and by falsely characterizing his performance and conduct while in office. P maintains that he suffered reputational and other economic damage. P moved for summary judgment claiming the statements are protected opinion, they are not capable of defamatory meaning and not false or made with actual malice.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.