"Underhill was disciplined for publicly responding to former clients’ negative online reviews with internet postings that disclosed sensitive and confidential information obtained during the representation. Underhill then ...."
An interesting, though unsurprising, decision in a case brought by prominent Russian businessmen over the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier.
So says the Delaware Court of Chancery: "If the information currently redacted remains so, the public will have no means to understand the dispute MetTel has asked the Court to adjudicate."
Louisiana is one of about a dozen states that has a criminal libel statute; my sense is that, throughout the country, there are likely about 20-30 criminal libel prosecutions per year.
A mayoral candidate, a supposed Aryan bicyclist, a video, a newspaper story, and a libel lawsuit.
Past perfect, libel-proof plaintiffs, substantial truth, “actual malice,” statutes of limitations, and more.
But I think the First Amendment prohibits such pretrial injunctions, and in any event the injunction targets opinions and not just false factual assertions.
The court finds that the Trump campaign didn't offer enough facts suggesting that CNN knew the statement was false (or was likely false); the campaign is allowed to file an amended complaint if it can make more specific allegations.
so long as the user's true identity is unknown to the audience, and the pseudonym has no "legally cognizable independent reputation" (as when the pseudonym is used by an author to sell books).
An interesting new case from Wisconsin.
So holds the California Court of Appeal, interpreting the California anti-SLAPP statute.
The Washington Supreme Court overrules a trial court's order requiring the removal of one such statement; but what should the general rule on this be?
Officer Saqueta Williams had been on the DA's "Do Not Call [to Testify] List" because of alleged assault during an off-duty incident (as to which she was later acquitted)—she alleges the documentary falsely implied that she was on the list because she was "dirty and dishonest."
over allegedly false fact-checking "charging [Owens] with spreading misinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic on the internet in 'an attempt to downplay the severity' of the pandemic."
So says the Minnesota Court of Appeals, as to a "harassment restraining order."
He seems open to materially increasing Internet service and content providers' liability for libels posted by their users, and based on other user misconduct.
A good illustration of the modern rule, which allows some permanent injunctions against repeating specific statements found to be libelous at trial—but only after such a finding on the merits.
The injunction, the court held, is an unconstitutional prior restraint.
An interesting decision, on a motion for default judgment.
Under the Westfall Act, the Justice Department can generally take over the defense of many such cases—and then get them dismissed.
Plaintiffs claimed that defendants had libeled them to foreign officials—but didn't have enough evidence that the defendants had actually said anything to those officials.
There is enough evidence that the Times knew their allegations were false (or at least were likely false) to go to the jury.
When can libel plaintiffs, suing over allegedly false claims of sexual misconduct, sue pseudonymously? When can defendants defend pseudonymously?
So holds a federal court, quite correctly; of course, the same is true about any religious group, racial group, or other such large group.
An interesting decision in former AP journalist Charles Ganske's lawsuit against former Member of Parliament Louise Mensch, with allegations of Russian bots and Tweeting frenzies thrown in for good measure.
Bonus: We learn that calling a doctor "a real tool" isn't libelous, either.
The legally strange dimension: A claim that the magazine article author sexually harassed the subject of her article, apparently by "seek[ing] inappropriate personal and romantic intimacy with Plaintiff."
The suit was based on an Esquire article about an Iowa farm run by members of Congressman Nunes' family.
Or, Virginia is for lovers, not libel tourists.
Trump's Tweet ("A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!") was opinion, and thus not actionable.
An interesting decision stemming from a dispute about whether the Spamhaus Project properly placed DatabaseUSA.com on a blocklist.
When can libel plaintiffs, suing over allegedly false claims of sexual misconduct, sue pseudonymously? When can defendants defend pseudonymously?
Defendant, a local mayor and sheriff's deputy, tweeted about Castile's girlfriend (who had gotten a settlement from local government entities), "She needs to come off County and State Aid now that she has some cash. It'll be gone in 6 months on crack cocaine."
So a Second Circuit panel just held.
Noted political publicist Trevor FitzGibbon (who had represented Julian Assange) sued whistleblower lawyer Jesselyn Radack (who had represented Edward Snowden) -- a second time; now there's a second settlement.
The ex-students had accused the professors (at the City University of New York) of sexual assault and other misconduct.
holds the Second Circuit in a case rejecting a libel lawsuit over a blog post headline.
