370 results for 'cat:"Defamation"'.
Per curiam, the appeals court finds that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in this defamation and civil conspiracy case. The suing physician alleges there were genuine issues of material fact remaining in his claims for defamation and conspiracy, which should have precluded summary judgment. The case is remanded to fix a typographical error; “the order should have dismissed Counts II-XVII.” Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 17, 2024, Case #: 6D23-1614, Categories: defamation
J. Dorsey grants the solar homeowner's anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the solar system installer's defamation claims. The homeowner wrote a negative Google review and filed consumer complaints with the Nevada State Contractors Board and the Nevada Bureau of Consumer Protection after the installer failed to include bird wiring to protect the equipment. The homeowner, under the incorrect presumption that bird wire was included in the contract, made the complaints in good faith, demonstrating the criticisms are protected by the anti-SLAPP statutes. The installer has established the legal sufficiency of its abuse-of-process claim, which may proceed.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Dorsey , Filed On: May 15, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv2036, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Anti-slapp, defamation, Contract
J. Mannion grants New York Magazine’s motion to dismiss an expert witness’s claims of false light and invasion of privacy concerning an article stating he was a “fraud.” The expert, who hangs his hat as a criminal profiler, says the magazine omitted several critical facts, but he identified no falsehoods and has not shown the reporter acted with actual malice.
Court: USDC Middle District of Pennsylvania, Judge: Mannion, Filed On: May 14, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv2166, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: defamation, First Amendment
J. Zmuda finds the lower court erroneously denied the superintendent's motion for summary judgment on defamation claims brought by the principal. The statements about accusations of sexual harassment and inappropriate touching of students were made only after a complete investigation and were not reckless or malicious, given that they included only verbatim statements from the investigative report; therefore, the superintendent was entitled to political subdivision immunity. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Zmuda, Filed On: May 10, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1798, Categories: Employment, Immunity, defamation
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Dever grants a multi-level marketing company and three of its corporate officers’ motions to compel arbitration following allegations of defamation, battery and contractual interference brought by a former independent business owner. The owner contracted with the company to sell its products. He expressed concern that the company was not investigating its support of former Vice President Mike Pence with regard to the 2020 election. Conflicts between the owner and the three officers escalated until, at a baseball game where company staff attended together, the officers allegedly accosted him and accused him of being armed, “mentally ill,” and “of the Devil,” then called the police. The police then escorted him out of the park where he claims ten of them punched and kicked him, breaking his ribs. The owner is unopposed to the company moving for arbitration but disagrees that the individuals involved can arbitrate because they didn’t sign the contract between him and the company. However, the individuals are affiliated with the company and can therefore compel arbitration.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Dever, Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv442, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Arbitration, defamation, Interference With Contract
J. Vaidik finds that the trial court improperly allowed plaintiff's son to invoke the anti-SLAPP defense in defamation claims because the son's accusations that plaintiff committed domestic violence against his mother decades before did not concern a public issue. Reversed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: Vaidik, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 23A-CT-2178, Categories: Anti-slapp, defamation
J. Delaney finds that the trial court improperly granted an anti-SLAPP motion in a defamation case filed by a politician's wife who claimed that statements on YouTube falsely associated her with communists in Vietnam. The wife did not become a limited purpose public figure simply by carrying a campaign poster one time at a cultural event, and family members of political candidates are not automatically public figures without more purposeful action of their own, so she is not required to show actual malice by the YouTube commenter. At the anti-SLAPP stage, the wife met her burden of showing that the allegation of communist ties was false, had a natural tendency to injure and demonstrated negligence, and the comments were not privileged. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Delaney, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: G062338, Categories: Anti-slapp, defamation
J. Wang denies an insurer a temporary restraining order in claims contending an agent breached his exclusive agreement and appropriated customer information to support a competing business, then responded to the insurer's suit with a smear campaign, because the insurer failed to establish a likelihood of success in the defamation action.
Court: USDC Colorado, Judge: Wang, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 1:24cv933, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Trade Secrets, defamation
J. Kendall denies the suing refurbished electronics dealer’s motion for sanctions and an injunction against the refurbished electronics shop it is suing. The suing dealer accused the other shop of filing false complaints about its products so as to disrupt its business, but the court finds the suing dealer has not provided sufficient evidence to back up those claims.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Kendall, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv6258, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Tort, defamation, Interference With Contract
J. Rabner finds that the appellate division improperly held that a police officer violated the non-disparagement clause in her settlement with the township by stating in a television news interview that she had been abused for eight years and discussing allegedly retaliatory disciplinary charges because the non-disparagement clause would bar speech protected under state anti-discrimination laws, and thus was not enforceable. Further, "survivors of discrimination and harassment have the right to speak about their experiences in any number of ways, and they can no longer be restrained by confidentiality provisions in employment contracts or settlement agreements." Reversed in part.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge: Rabner , Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: A-2-23, Categories: Employment, defamation, Employment Retaliation
J. Beales finds a lower court did not err when it found that a teacher and football coach had not shown he was defamed by a school report that found he had “loudly uttered numerous statements incorporating profanity around students.” Because the allegedly defamatory statements were made as part of an official report, the officials’ statements were “entitled to qualified privilege and, therefore, could not be defamatory.” Affirmed.
Court: Virginia Court Of Appeals, Judge: Beales, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 0702-23-3, Categories: Education, defamation
J. Hamilton finds that the lower court properly found for the city on constitutional and defamation claims filed by a business owner who claims the city denied his business an emergency grant because he had gone to an illegal anti-lockdown rally at the Wisconsin State Capitol. The state's Safer at Home Order was a valid restriction on speech and public gatherings due to the government interest in stopping the spread of Covid-19. Further, it was not unreasonable for the city to have denied discretionary funds to a business whose manager had violated the law and contributed to the public health crisis. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Hamilton, Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: 23-1208, Categories: defamation, Covid-19, First Amendment
[Consolidated.] J. McFadden finds that the trial court properly granted the company's motion to dismiss the individual's defamation claim under Georgia's anti-SLAPP law. The individual alleged in a conversion and breach of fiduciary duty action that the company made false statements in responding to an SEC subpoena for records regarding a financial transaction. The alleged statements made by the company related to an official proceeding and concern protected activity. The individual's defamation claim was also untimely. The trial court incorrectly denied the company's request for attorney fees and improperly ordered the company to produce attorney-client privileged communications under a fiduciary duty exception. Reversed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: McFadden, Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: A24A0268, Categories: Anti-slapp, defamation, Attorney Fees
J. Lipman grants in part an apartment company’s motion for sanctions of judgment and permanent injunction against the pro se defendant in this suit alleging defamation, negligence per se and violations of Tennessee’s Consumer Protection Act. Judgment is granted for the apartment company, and a permanent injunction is issued with limitations that ensure that the individual defendant’s “First Amendment rights are protected.”
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Lipman, Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv2186, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Civil Procedure, Sanctions, defamation
J. Winmill denies in part a police officer and her husband's motion for summary judgment regarding an individual's claims of false arrest and defamation after he was arrested for misdemeanor second-degree stalking of the police officer, her husband, and their 12-year-old daughter. The couple alleged that the individual would park outside their home, beside their daughter's school bus, and that he tried to enter their home. After he was arrested, the husband posted the individual's mugshot on NextDoor. The county prosecutor eventually dismissed the charges against the individual. Undisputed facts show that the sheriff's department officer had probable cause to arrest the individual and that the police officer who claimed he was stalking her did not participate in the investigation or arrest. It is up to the jury to decide whether the husband acted negligently in posting the individual's information to NextDoor.
Court: USDC Idaho, Judge: Winmill, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv186, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, defamation
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the trial court properly found for the employer in defamation claims concerning statements that had been made about the employee's professional and medical misconduct because the employer had been required to make such a report. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: CA 23-00146 , Categories: Employment, defamation
J. Johnson, in this accelerated interlocutory appeal, finds the trial court properly denied USA Today's Texas Citizen’s Participation Act motion to dismiss the defamation claim. The tax service provider alleges a USA Today story falsely accused him of unlawful business practices in an effort to secure tax savings for clients. Record evidence creates a genuine fact issue on whether the publisher accurately reported whether the FBI was investigating the service provider. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Johnson, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: 09-22-00432-CV, Categories: Tax, defamation, Business Practices
J. Hassan finds that the trial court's order of non-suit in a defamation case did not constitute a final judgment since it did not address the request for attorney fees and damages. Thus, the appellants' motion to modify was improperly denied, so the case is remanded. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Hassan, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: 14-23-00171-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, defamation
Per curiam, the circuit finds the district court properly dismissed a doctor's defamation, fraud and age discrimination claims. Utilizing the medical personnel placement service, says he was not selected for a position for which he was referred because of his age. The service did not fail to refer him for employment and the employer did not hire him due to a lack of specific federal experience. The employer's statement the doctor was "difficult to reach" is not defamatory and the record does not support his claims of fraud. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: 23-11066, Categories: Fraud, defamation, Employment Discrimination
J. O’Connor finds that a case brought by John Sabal, the owner of the conservative publication The Patriot Voice, claiming that the Anti-Defamation League published defamatory content that falsely connected Sabal with anti-Semitic statements, conspiracy theories and events can proceed. The statements rise above the level of inference or opinion because they could be interpreted as factual by readers. The Anti-Defamation League’s motion to dismiss regarding the published statements is denied.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: O’Connor, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: 4:23cv1002, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Terrorism, defamation
J. Pepper grants the nail salon owner's motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee in her lawsuit alleging a former friend maliciously slandered her and her business on social media. In part because there is a lack of clarity in the complaint regarding jurisdiction, the owner is given until June 7, 2024, to file an amended complaint. If she does not, her lawsuit will be dismissed.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Pepper, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: 2:24cv8, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, defamation
J. Liman denies former President Trump's motion for a new trial on author Jean Carroll's claim that he defamed her in two statements issued from the White House in 2019. The jury was entitled to conclude that Mr. Trump derailed Ms. Carroll's career, and exposed her to public threats due to his malicious attacks on her character. The compensatory damages award of $18.3 million is far from an anomaly in high-profile defamation cases, and the jury was entitled to find that Mr. Trump's continued attacks on Ms. Carroll, even during the course of trial, warranted a finding he would not stop making such remarks without a significant deterrent, supporting the $65 million punitive damages award.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Liman, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv7311, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Damages, defamation
J. Poissant finds that the trial court improperly granted a plea to the jurisdiction in an actress' defamation suit against a university academic counselor after a disagreement between them and subsequent criminal trespass complaint against the actress. The counselor's claim of having "absolute privilege" will not be considered when determining subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Poissant, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 14-22-00877-CV, Categories: defamation, Jurisdiction
J. Adams finds the lower court improperly denied a group of publishers' motion to dismiss. ProPublica and the Houston Chronicle ran an article on a prominent cardiologist titled “A Pioneering Heart Surgeon’s Secret History of Research Violations, Conflicts of Interest and Poor Outcomes.” The cardiologist subsequently filed suit against the publishers for defamation. The trial court found the article created false impressions, but the instant court finds it referenced the opinions of two cardiologists on the cardiologist's work, research and background, and cannot be the foundation of a defamation claim. Reviewing the article as a whole, the instant court finds the publishers established by a preponderance of the evidence of substantial truth and non-actionable opinion. The matter is remanded for further proceedings. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Adams, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 01-22-00281-CV, Categories: defamation
J. Zainey denies a request by Walmart to dismiss as time-barred an overnight stocker’s malicious prosecution and defamation suit. She argues the clock on her claims did not begin running until after a city prosecutor dismissed Walmart’s theft claims. The store had her arrested for twice purchasing multiple packages of newly marked-down meat after her shift ended. In neither instance did she alter the pricing labels, and she paid full price for the meat. Walmart may raise its prescription argument later.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Zainey, Filed On: April 23, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv6441, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Employment, defamation