Under the Westfall Act, the Justice Department can generally take over the defense of many such cases—and then get them dismissed.
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.
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.
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."
Libel Lawsuit by Trump Supporter (and Sanctuary-State Opponent) Roslyn La Liberte Against MSNBC's Joy Reid Can Go Forward
So a Second Circuit panel just held.
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.
Straka loses on his discrimination, cyberbullying, defamation, and breach of contract claims.
Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the defendant didn't just create the list as a platform for others, but herself posted material about him -- though whether plaintiff ultimately prevails will depend on what discovery reveals.
Rep. Devin Nunes can't hold Twitter liable for allegedly defamatory posts by Twitter user:
"Defendant's Yelp post about plaintiff is reasonably and best understood to be, simply, name-calling."
"Even if past [mentally distressing] speech that an offender made to a person ... could be considered ... integral to the criminal conduct of menacing by stalking [and thus unprotected], we do not believe that this principle may be applied categorically to future speech ... directed to others."
An interesting illustration of the qualified privilege that many courts recognize in such cases.
Fortunately, the Michigan Court of Appeals has just reversed that injunction.
"The Court's belief in the veracity of Wright's testimony dwindled while the trial progressed, as evidence of her inconsistent and questionable conduct was revealed piece by piece.... She lied about her advanced degrees. She signed e-mails as Dr. Wright when she is not a doctor. Her testimony and medical records conflicted time and time again ...."
But permanent injunctions after a full trial on the merits might be a different story.
of dissecting each of the sixteen bullet points illustrates the deficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint."
An important First Amendment holding in a factually fascinating case, which involves an alleged breach of contract, a World War II Medal of Honor, a dispute over a history book, and a discussion of anti-libel injunctions.
But other courts in the Ninth Circuit have categorically said that such injunctions are unconstitutional—the law remains quite unclear.
"Even the most dedicated patent lawyer would have difficulty mustering 'hatred' for a computer user who inadvertently violated a patent."
The Newsweek article, among other things, quoted a professor who said two young public supporters of Trump "'camouflage' positions of the hard right 'as feel-good sweetness and light, when, in fact, they are defending raw racism and sexual abuse.'"
Candidate for Wisconsin S. Ct. (Judge Jill Karofsky) Seeks Preliminary Injunction Against Allegedly Libelous Campaign Ads
Today, Judge Judge Timothy M. Witkowiak refused to issue the injunction, partly on prior restraint grounds. The election is scheduled for tomorrow.
Heard's Washington Post op-ed didn't mention Depp, but the judge concludes that in context it would be seen as implying factual assertions about him.
at least under the Illinois "innocent construction" rule, under which "a nondefamatory interpretation must be adopted if it is reasonable"—"a reasonable reading of Lorenz's article is that although Wedgewood communicated with underage girls, he never meant to take things further."