An Oklahoma appeals court took the unusual step of hearing oral arguments Friday at the OU College of Law in a case involving an Oklahoma City television station and a former high school coach.

Jon Epstein, attorney for KOKH Fox 25, and Steven Parker, attorney for Bill Grogan, said it was unusual for appeals courts in Oklahoma to hear oral arguments.

Parties to a dispute file briefs with courts explaining their positions and arguments, and appeals courts in Oklahoma usually rely on those briefs, along with records from the lower court that heard the case, to make their decisions.

Parker said he thought the court decided to hear oral arguments because the dispute involves a "very close question."

The question here was whether Grogan, a former basketball coach at Macomb High School, had enough evidence to be able to present his claims KOKH, along with reporter Matt Austin and anchors Andrew Speno and Jamie Cerreta, defamed him and presented him in a false light.

A Pottawatomie County judge granted KOKH and the reporters summary judgment in September. The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a 2000 decision, defined summary judgment as "one party [being] entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions. (In re Mcfarline, 2000 OK 87)"

Austin's Feb. 22, 2008 report stated parents of Macomb High School students accused Grogan of threatening to shoot students, according to court documents filed by both parties. Grogan denied making such a threat, and said he was trying to illustrate a point about the absolute authority of a referee at a basketball game, according to a brief filed by Parker.

"To illustrate his point, [Grogan] indicated the deputy beside him, who was wearing a gun, could shoot persons if he chose to do so to enforce the law," the brief states.

Austin began his report by saying "Well, guys, on the heels of terrorist threats at local schools and a shooting at [Northern Illinois University], some parents in Macomb are fuming. They say a teacher threatened their children and he should be punished like anyone else," a brief filed by Epstein states.

Those comments create an issue for a jury to determine if Austin and KOKH defamed Grogan by accusing him of threading students and if the report painted Grogan in a false light, Parker said during his argument.

However, Judges John Fischer and and Jane Wiseman asked if those comments created a disputed fact for a jury to decide, since Austin reported on accusations the parents were making.

Parker said the issue was the report connected Grogan's name with the word terrorist, and that a reasonable person could infer Austin was calling Grogan an terrorist.

Three people signed affidavits that they believed Austin called Grogan a terrorist, and a principal at Maude High School refused to hire Grogan because she said his name was connected with the terrorist label, Parker said.

However, Epstein said no one who testified in or gave an affidavit to the trial court actually believed Grogan was a terrorist. It would make no more sense to draw that conclusion from Austin's report than it would to draw the conclusion Grogan was the shooter at Northern Illinois, Epstein said.

Both parties agreed Grogan was, for the purposes of the case, a public figure. However, Austin acted in reckless disregard of the truth when he labelled Grogan a terrorist, Parker stated in his brief. Acting in reckless disregard of the truth is one element of actual malice, which a public figure must show in order to win a defamation suit. He must also show the statement was false and defamatory.

Fischer recessed the court at the end of the arguments, and did not say when a decision would be announced by the court.