“For diversity jurisdiction to exist, no plaintiff may share state citizenship with any defendant," and "[u]nincorporated associations, including LLCs, have the citizenship of each of their members."
Defendants had said Klayman "'could be the single worst lawyer in America,' has 'never actually won a courtroom victory in his life,' and is an 'idiot' and an 'egomaniac,'" and that "Corsi he seemed to mentally be extremely degraded to the point of what I would call dementia."
A Tennessee trial court "enjoined the parties [including a recent candidate for elected office] from making any public comments about each other and from making any 'negative or disrespectful comments' about each other to third parties."
at least through discovery and until the motion for summary judgment; Netflix’s motion to dismiss has been denied.
Remember, the lawyer’s true superpower is to turn every question into a question about procedure.
Special bonus connections: disbarred lawyers, Tupac Shakur, New York City political figures, and then-not-yet-Attorney-General Michael Mukasey.
The lawsuit stemmed from CNN's coverage of Dershowitz's argument in the first Trump impeachment trial.
(Lolicon is "A Japanese term derived from the English phrase 'Lolita complex,' lolicon describes a fascination with cartoons of very young-looking girls engaged in varying degrees of erotic behavior.")
even if the press release accurately summarizes the Complaint; the rule is different in some states, such as California.
The defendant had been barred from presenting his defense, as a sanction for his persistent violation of court orders, including one that he had expressly consented to.
If plaintiff broadly claims that defendant libeled her by "imputing unchastity," she risks having to disclose a lot about her sexual history.
And claims of veiled threats don't change that.
It's an unconstitutional prior restraint, the court holds.
A student was expelled by St. John Fisher College for alleged sexual misconduct, but was then acquitted at a criminal trial and sued the college; the college agreed to confidentiality to settle the case, but then allegedly breached the agreement.
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.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks