The case is Pacira BioSciences v. American Society of Anesthesiologists, a trade libel lawsuit filed over journal articles and other publications questioning the efficacy of Pacira's pain-killer Exparel.
So the New York intermediate appellate court held yesterday, by a 3-2 vote.
Pacira Biosciences' redacted brief supporting the motion for the preliminary injunction is now available—but it says nothing about the First Amendment, or about how the injunction could escape the prior restraint doctrine.
Pacira Biosciences, Inc. is suing over allegedly "false and misleading statements made about EXPAREL, a pain medication drug."
Gripes about publishers getting "private commercial benefit" from "hate speech, propaganda, and statements that seek to destabilize American democracy"; argument that "[t]he public figure doctrine emerged in an era prior to the Internet advertising model that rewards news organizations for the ongoing display of defamatory content."
Remember: Lawyers’ true superpower is the power to turn all questions into questions about procedure.
The lawsuit was brought by casino developer Steve Wynn, over a press release put out by Bloom related to a sexual harassment claim that Bloom's firm brought on behalf of a dancer.
I'm continuing to serialize a forthcoming article of mine that discusses (among other things) such a proposed interpretation of libel law.
The court doesn't decide whether the column was libelous, but just that the National Review wasn't liable for Steyn's post, because Steyn wasn't an employee.
A bit of background on the current law of libel; I'll have more about the implications of this in an upcoming post.
I publish something about you on Jan. 1, but I don't learn that it's false until Jan. 2. You then sue me for not taking down the post—should my liability turn on my mental state as of Jan. 1, or as of the time you sue?
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming law review article on the duty to correct your own libelous posts, once you learn that they are libelous.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming law review article on this subject.
Obvious, but good to have a cite for that.
Another article that I'm serializing over the coming days.
The plaintiff was fired and accused of sexual harassment; he won a libel lawsuit over that, and the jury awarded him $550K, but the trial court had reduced it to $100K.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
Some speculation from my forthcoming article.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
Some speculation from my forthcoming article.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
Some speculation from my forthcoming article.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
I’m continuing to serialize a new law review article draft of mine.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
I’m continuing to serialize a new law review article draft of mine.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
I’m serializing a new law review article draft of mine.
The libel claim, the court held, was foreclosed by an agreement settling the lawsuit that had indirectly led to the review.
The statements about former law student Jonathan Mullane were either a fair report of court proceedings or protected by the First Amendment.
The podcast is about Charles Harrelson (actor Woody Harrelson's father), who had been convicted of murdering a federal judge
An interesting decision on a motion to dismiss in this libel lawsuit.
Plastic surgeon David Shifrin is suing commenters who posted negative reviews based on an ex-patient's critical YouTube video. (There are also libel claims in the lawsuit as well.)
The Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider its earlier precedents denying non-media speakers certain First Amendment libel law protections.
My article was about Kelly Hyman v. Alex Daoud, in which a court order seemed to command all Internet "services" to remove material that mentions plaintiff or her husband (retired federal bankruptcy judge Paul Hyman).
I'm serializing a forthcoming law review article of mine.
Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas has been appointed to hear the case.
I've been seeing many such libel lawsuits recently, though only a few have gone so far as to yield a verdict for the libel plaintiff.
though the case can be refiled in state court.
If this decision stands, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have a chance to reconsider the N.Y. Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" requirement in this case (not that it was likely to in any event).
Twitter's labeling, John Paul Mac Isaac contends, implicitly accused him of being a hacker, and was therefore libel.
