Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘libel slander and defamation’

Summary Judgment Like a Good Wine

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a “substantial” jury verdict in a defamation case against The Boston Phoenix, finding that the lower court was too quick to earlier rule on summary judgment that the plaintiff, a Maryland state prosecutor, was not a “public figure” for purposes of libel law.

Judge Selya chose an interesting metaphor to open the Court’s opinion:

“The oenologist’s creed teaches that we should drink no wine before its time. Much the same
principle applies to summary judgment; it is a deliciously helpful device if properly timed, but one that can leave a sour taste if brought to bear on an insufficiently fermented record.”

Orson Wells introduced us to that motto on behalf of that tower of oenological perfection, Paul Masson. But like the wine of Paul Masson, I find Judge Selya’s stretching of the metaphor a little dry on the palate.

Filed under: ,

Update: Michael Jordan lookalike drops suit

Updating our Jul. 8 item:

The Northeast Portland man who sought more than $800 million from Michael Jordan and Nike founder Phil Knight because he said he was tired of being mistaken for the famous basketball player is giving up his defamation lawsuit….

Vada Manager, Nike spokesman, said no payment was made to [Allen Ray] Heckard to get him to drop the lawsuit.

“It’s fairly simple,” Manager said Monday. “He finally realized he would end up paying our court costs if the lawsuit went to trial.”

(Holly Danks, “Man throws in towel on Jordan lawsuit”, The Oregonian, Aug. 1). For more on the principle that costs should follow the event — and not just in cases as wacky as this one — see our loser-pays page.

Filed under: , ,

London’s (and Belfast’s) libel-shoppers

Britney Spears has resorted to the courts of justice in Belfast, Northern Ireland, to slap down the National Enquirer, while singers Paula Abdul and Whitney Houston are reported to be contemplating similar trips in search of the plaintiff-friendly libel laws of the United Kingdom. Aren’t they just a little bit ashamed of themselves? The “speedy results and whopping damages” of defamation suits in the U.K. “might be nice for the celebrity claimants. But it’s bad for those of us who live in Britain permanently. These libel tourists are helping to prop up our illiberal, antidemocratic, and ‘repugnant’ libel laws, which are an offense to free speech and open debate.” (Brendan O’Neill, “Throwing our judicial junk in Britain’s backyard (or courts)”, Christian Science Monitor, Jul. 24). But actually, reports Mark Stephens in The Times (London) Online, it is global business magnates rather than entertainment figures who are nowadays the busiest libel tourists in the British courts. They come from America, Russia and the Middle East to squelch the naughty insinuations of the financial press that not everything about their business dealings is on the up and up (“New celebrities of the libel courts”, Jul. 18).

Filed under: , , , ,

“We’re going to sue everyone from A to Z”

It was easy to sympathize with Richard Jewell, victim a decade ago of FBI bungling which led to his being falsely suspected in the Atlanta Olympics bombing. It’s not so easy to sympathize with his legal posture since then, which would be easily mistaken for an effort to vacuum the pockets of every media organization within reach. (Mark Fitzgerald, “Sob On Someone Else’s Shoulder, Richard Jewell”, Editor and Publisher, Jul. 25).

Filed under: , , , , ,

Look for the union libel

“A jury ruled Friday that a labor union defamed Sutter Health with a mass mailing of postcards and awarded the Northern California health care organization almost $17.3 million in damages. The Placer County jury found that Unite Here, one of the nation’s largest unions that represents hotel, restaurant and laundry workers, defamed Sutter Health early last year by sending postcards to women of child-bearing age in Northern California claiming the organization’s hospitals used unclean linens. The union was in a labor dispute with the laundry service that cleaned the linens at the time.” (“Jury: Union defamed Sutter Health”, InsideBayArea.com (Hayward Daily Review), Jul. 23; Mehul Srivastava, “Jury award stings union”, Sacramento Bee, Jul. 22).

Filed under: , , , ,

Update: damages in Ill. justice’s libel suit

So how exactly do you build a case for high damages when the alleged defamation (see Jun. 22) hasn’t dislodged you from the bench and it will be a good long while before your term expires? Well, your lawyer can talk about how you were thinking of stepping down to become a highly paid rainmaker at a Chicago law firm, and so maybe the defendant newspaper should have to compensate you for what your hired economist says is the value of that. Besides, you were thinking of securing an appointment as a federal judge. And what if the Illinois voters decide to throw you out down the road — isn’t the lost salary from that something the defendant should have to pay you for, too? (Eric Herman, “Justice’s libel suit figures his losses”, Chicago Sun-Times, Jun. 10)(via Lattman).

Filed under: , , , , ,

“File when ready”

It’s best to choose your words carefully when writing about this aspiring Delaware politician. “Lawsuits have been a big part of Korn’s life for the better part of two decades….’I would sue anybody again if I had to, if something were not right or accurate,’ Korn said. ‘I will go to the ends of what it takes if I feel I’ve been slandered, libeled or maligned in any way.'” (Celia Cohen, Delaware Grapevine, Jun. 26).

Filed under: , ,

Lott v. Levitt, Part VI

Lott filed his response to the motion to dismiss Monday. Lott seems to have the better of this exchange as a matter of positive (if not normative) law because of the liberal pleading rules that make it nearly impossible to dismiss a case on the pleadings. That has little predictive value for what happens afterwards. (Note, however, the Northern District of Illinois’ Local Rules’ 15-page limit, which make it nearly impossible to file a motion for summary judgment without the permission of the court.)

Previous entry.

Filed under: , ,