director and former coach to be a limited purpose public figure); Vandenburg v. Newsweek, Inc., 507 F.2d 1024, 1025 n. 1 (5th Cir.1975) (finding a track coach to be a public figure “for a limited range of issues”); Time, Inc. v. Johnston, 448 F.2d 378, 380 (4th Cir.1971) (finding that a basketball player was a limited purpose public figure so far as an article concerned his public performance); Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters., Inc., 209 F.3d 163, 177 (2d Cir.2000) (finding defendant, a “well known radio commentator,” was a public figure within the city’s Filipino-American community); Grayson v. Curtis Publ’g Co., 72 Wash.2d 999, 436 P.2d 756, 762 (1968) (finding that a basketball coach was a limited purpose public figure); Brooks v. Paige, 773 P.2d 1098, 1101 (Colo.Ct.App.1988) (<HOLDING>); Gomez v. Murdoch, 193 NJ.Super. 595, 475 A.2d
holding that tramway project developer who voluntarily sought public approval of project was public figure holding that a soccer player was a public figure within the local sports community holding that a candidate for a planned unit development associations board was a limited purpose public figure because as a candidate for election to the associations board of directors plaintiff thrust himself into a spotlight which justified viewing him as a public figure for the limited purpose of his candidacy holding that former state transportation department employee who brought allegations of departmental corruption to public attention was public figure holding under federal law that public figure claiming iied based on defamatory nature of speech must prove actual malice