Substantially True Implications and Pure Opinions in Defamation by Implication: Utterback v. Morris

Introduction

In Thomas M. Utterback v. Craig B. Morris (11th Cir. 2025), the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s single-count defamation-by-implication action under Florida law. Plaintiff Utterback, a former attorney convicted of money laundering in 1998, alleged that attorney Morris defamed him by implying false and damaging things about his criminal history and litigiousness during a presentation to a condominium-association board. The district court granted Morris’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, clarifying key principles governing defamation by implication at the pleading stage.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Utterback’s defamation-by-implication claim. It held that:

The court may properly take judicial notice of public filings and convictions when ruling on a motion to dismiss, without converting it to summary judgment.
Utterback failed to show any implied statement was false—the “gist” or “sting” of Morris’s remarks was substantially true, as Utterback pleaded his conviction and loss of his law license.
Morris’s characterizations of Utterback’s litigation history were pure opinion based on facts either stated or publicly known and thus not actionable.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp (Fla. 2008): Established Florida’s defamation standard and introduced defamation by implication—liability where a speaker’s truthful words create a false, defamatory suggestion.
Turner v. Wells (11th Cir. 2018): Confirmed that pure opinion and rhetorical hyperbole are protected from defamation liability.
Horsley v. Rivera (11th Cir. 2002): Held that nonliteral assertions and hyperbole cannot reasonably be interpreted as factual statements.
Byrd v. Hustler Magazine (Fla. 1983) & Loeb v. Geronemus (Fla. 1953): Instructed that courts determine defamation by implication as a matter of law, examining the publication in its totality and common‐sense interpretation.
Fed. R. Evid. 201 / Jones v. United States (11th Cir. 1994): Authorized judicial notice of public records and prior judicial proceedings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning unfolded in three parts:

Judicial Notice at the Pleading Stage
The court confirmed that a motion to dismiss may incorporate “judicially noticeable” public documents—such as criminal judgments and court filings—to establish uncontroverted facts. When those facts are admitted in the complaint, reliance on them does not convert the motion into one for summary judgment.
Substantial Truth Defense
Under Florida law, defamation fails if “the gist” of the statement is true. Utterback admitted in his complaint that he pled guilty to laundering drug proceeds and lost his law license. Morris’s remarks—that Utterback was a convicted felon who lost his bar license and sought to practice law only by suing people—were substantially true, defeating any claim of falsity.
Pure Opinion vs. Actionable Implication
Statements reflecting “pure opinion” based on disclosed or universally known facts are not defamatory. Morris’s comments about Utterback’s litigation history were clearly opinion (“He’s suing someone right now probably”), grounded in publicly available facts. There was no undisclosed, defamatory fact underlying those opinions to create liability.

Impact

This decision sharpens the boundaries of defamation by implication in several ways:

Pleading Stage Scrutiny: Courts will dismiss claims where the plaintiff admits core facts that render any defamatory implication substantially true.
Judicial Notice of Public Records: Defendants can safely rely on prior convictions and court filings when moving under Rule 12(b)(6), and courts will take notice of those records to assess falsity or truth.
Opinion Protection: The ruling reaffirms that statements amounting to opinion—when grounded in disclosed or readily discoverable facts—are beyond defamation’s reach.
Defamation by Implication: Courts will enforce a high bar, demanding that plaintiffs identify undisclosed facts or a false “implied” narrative to survive dismissal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Defamation by Implication

Liability not for direct false statements but for arranging truthful facts in a way that implies a false—and defamatory—conclusion.

Pure Opinion vs. Mixed Opinion

Pure Opinion: Comments based on facts stated or publicly known (e.g., “He’s litigious”), which cannot be proved true or false and are protected by the First Amendment.
Mixed Opinion: Comments that imply undisclosed facts (“He steals from clients”), potentially actionable if the underlying facts are false.

Substantial Truth

If the “gist” or “sting” of an alleged defamation is true, the claim fails even if some details are imprecise or exaggerated.

Judicial Notice

The rule that a court can accept as true certain facts from publicly available records without treating them as evidence requiring cross-examination.

Conclusion

Utterback v. Morris reinforces two core protections in defamation law: first, that a plaintiff cannot survive a motion to dismiss by denying a truth they have already pleaded, and second, that statements of opinion grounded in disclosed or public facts are categorically non-actionable. This decision will guide practitioners in drafting and defending defamation actions—emphasizing the critical need to identify specifically false or undisclosed facts when alleging a defamatory implication.