White v. Town of Chapel Hill
United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
899 F. Supp. 1428 (1995)
- Written by Ross Sewell, JD
Facts
Chapel Hill Police Department officers (officers) (defendants) responded to a hostage situation between William White (plaintiff) and his then fiancée, Rhonda Allen. White and Allen both had a history of mental illness. Allen was outside when the officers arrived, and she told James Hugerich, the crisis-unit supervisor and a police negotiator, that she found White’s journal and that it contained suicidal and homicidal thoughts. Hugerich read White’s journal notes that said White wanted to blow people away and that he could blow out his brains. Allen told Hugerich that White was carrying a .44-caliber revolver. After nearly six hours of negotiation, police secured White and his gun. He was taken to the emergency room and involuntarily committed. White sued the Town of Chapel Hill (Chapel Hill) (defendant) and six officers, individually and in their official capacities, for defamation, among other claims. White alleged that the officers called him a gunman when talking to the press, and that this damaged his reputation within the community and was therefore actionable as slander. White alleged no other particular damages due to the officers’ allegedly defamatory statements. White argued that the word gunman used to describe him was false because he did not wield or brandish a gun. Chapel Hill and the officers moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did not defame White.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bullock, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


