The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"We Need Not Apply Newton's First Law of Motion to Legal Precedent"
"[E]rroneous precedent once in motion need not stay in motion."
An interesting turn of phrase from Tuesday's concurrence by Judge Michael Catlett, joined by Judge James Morse Jr., in Hintzen-Gaines v. Adelson. The specific issue the two judges (who actually formed the majority of the three-judge panel, but wrote this in a concurrence):
[W]hen properly raised, this court should set things right in this area of law by making clear that only common law rules apply when a private-figure plaintiff brings a defamation claim based on speech addressing only matters of private concern. Ultimately, however, we agree with the majority decision that plaintiff did enough under existing caselaw to survive a motion to dismiss, and therefore we join the majority decision in full.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“We Need Not Apply Newton’s First Law of Motion to Legal Precfedent”
It’s valid until you get close to the speed of light, or deep in a gravity well, no matter how strange the noun.
The concurrence accurately spells "precedent."
Whoops, fixed, thanks!