The state is on the hook for the plaintiff's costs for the appeal.
Yes. Costs include things such as filing fees and maybe transcripts. Notably, costs do not generally include attorney fees.
There are some statutes which expressly make attorney fees either recoverable or recoverable as part of the cost of the action, but generally in the U.S. each side pays its own attorneys. See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. 306 (US 1796).
Local blackouts are not necessarily even a good idea for baseball. Many years ago, before a lot of the readers were born, there was a baseball team in Atlanta. It had a fairly large ballpark, Fulton County Stadium, but fairly small crowds of about 5000-7000 per game.
There was also a local businessman named Turner, who owned a UHF TV station. Back then, UHF was considered sort of second-class: some older TV sets did not have tuners for that. The ones which had tuners generally had less-satisfactory continuous-tune knobs rather than ``click'' tuning for each channel. Propagation was a little dodgy as well, probably due as much to poor antennas in the homes as to lousy tower placement. Echos were common, too. However, chan 17 was fairly low UHF, and Turner had good tower location, so reception in the area was pretty good.
Back then, and probably now, TV station owners had to have something to show on their stations around the adverts. Worse, usually the owners had to pay for the content, even if it was mostly reruns and very old re-runs.
Fortunately for Mr. Turner, he also owned a baseball team. Idea: content for his TV station. He started showing pretty much every home game (and road games, too) on his TV station, no doubt paying himself something for the privilege of doing so. I expect that was some of the TV station's most popular programming.
Those games on the TV had a major effect on attendance at the ball park, too. People watched the games on TV, and then started showing up at the ball park as well. I guess they had gotten in the habit of enjoying the games and perhaps rooting for the team.
I think the UHF TV station also eventually became nationally distributed on cable as well. Since I have no cable and generally do not watch TV, and am hundreds of miles from Atlanta, I cannot be sure of the situation there. But the baseball team did very well after it starting showing the home games on local TV.
At least we assume that it is the same letter, as seems incredibly likely. The problem is that neither the original article nor the response here give us the actual text of the letter.
Re: Re: Count me among those at Techdirt who think this ruling i
simply saying "This statement is false and they didn't do enough investigation to confirm that it was false"
The first part is beyond what you often see in SLAPP suits. If they identify a specific statement as false, they have gotten over the first hurdle because many claimants do not identify the false statement.
As for ``enough investigation'', well, that is not usually the standard. Times v. Sullivan malice requires knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.
So, simply stating that ``this statement is false and defendant knew it was false'' might get past the motion. You might want a few more facts to show reckless disregard, e.g. def had obtained but ignored specific information, but even that is not going to require you to plead War and Peace.
Schools have been doing the same thing for years with football conferences. You play mainly games in your own conference. Games against non-conference schools do not count so much.
Here, you would have a very small number of ``important'' publishers. Each school picks one publisher silo. Their research is then tailored to their publisher's needs. Their papers cite mainly other papers published by their own publisher, papers published outside of their silo are less important and given less weight.
Properly implemented, it would help prop up the otherwise somewhat obsolete academic publishing companies.
Meanwhile, in the real world, many things are back to normal.
Yeah, but here in the ``make believe'' world, many things are going sideways. Car makers cannot get the parts they need. Paint makers cannot get the resins they need. Stores cannot get the paper goods they need. Computer makers cannot get the parts they need, but fortunately my needs are modest enough that older-model computers are adequate to the task.
I have not handled any of these cases down in Hillsborough, but suspect that there are similarities to other areas. So, a few things to know.
Many housing-authority-type leases have no-crime provisions. If anyone in the household commits a crime on the premises, and sometimes off premises, the family can be put out. I do not say that this is sound policy, that is above my pay grade. But it is there, largely due to dim-witted Federal encouragement. So there may be some basis for LL to evict.
If the tenant has counsel, the chances are good that the eviction can be defeated, with fees. The burden is on the LL to prove up the crime, and the statute has a fee-shifting provision. I bet nearly every county, and surely one as large as Hillsborough, has attys who are willing to take on housing authorities.
Eviction is civil, so the standard is preponderence, not reasonable doubt. However, the evidence of the crime is often tightly held by the police, such that the LL may not be able to prove their case. Of course, if the problem is such that neighbors are complaining, the LL will probably have an easy job. But that is a different, and more justified, eviction.
I have seen LLs just entirely blow the 45 days on this sort of case. If LL does not bring it within 45 days, it is barred by the statute. And if the police hold on to the evidence long enough, well.
I am sure there are competent attys on the west coast, and they should know these things if they handle LL/Tenant matters.
cannot trust copyright owners to know who of the 2 million people actually have a license
As the sellers of licenses, they are the very ones whom I would expect to have carefully maintained records. Failing that, they should not sue to enforce, because the burden is supposed to be on the plaintiff to show infringement.
A dec action may seem a somewhat empty remedy, but it provides a learning experience for the department in that it does receive a public shaming. Also, in the context of a civil rights action, I expect that they will get to pay fees.
All of this is at taxpayer expense, of course. No offending police will be harmed in their wallets.
Did Ken Paxton actually graduate law school without learning this?
Such a thing is at least possible, because First Amendment law is an elective and not a required course. Mr. Paxton may never have run into Hurley v. Irish-American GL&B Org. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), because it was not required.
"if you interact with our fare database and make us serve you information, you can only use that information for yourself, and to purchase itineraries where you intend to fly every leg of a journey"?
The reason this fails is that the airline is a common carrier. Their prices are supposed to be contained in a tarriff, which is public information.
taking the fifth tanks the case because it can legally be assumed by the court the reason the fifth was taken in a civil case
Not exactly. We can draw inferrences, perhaps, but remember that this is the employees asserting the privilege for themselves rather than the corp or even a corporate rep asserting the privilege. Any inferrence would be against the employee, not the plaintiff.
Still, it looks bad.
If a plaintiff asserts the privilege, then there will be an adverse inferrence. However, that is not the case here. Indeed, it would be difficult for this plaintiff, Nu Star Farms, to assert the privilege because it is not a natural person.
Thursday night was the catastrophic undermining of not only the Court's own legitimacy
In fairness, the Court gave up most pretenses of legitimacy in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), where it ruled that
counting votes violates equal protection
its own delay in decision made vote counting improper
The court said, id. at 109, that the decision should not be used as precedent, but was limited to ``present circumstances''. Those circumstances were that, absent a ruling against counting votes, a disfavored candidate would be elected.
There have been other decisions, e.g Korematsu, 323 U.S. 214, and Schenck, 249 U.S. 47, which have also prove to be embarrassing. But at least those had the excuse of the fever of war rather than the open humiliation of being results-driven.
Her speech, abhorrent and distasteful though it may be, still deserves (and receives) the same legal protection as yours
Her speech, abhorrent and distasteful though it may be, still receives the same legal protection as yours.
There, fixed that for you.
Her speech deserves denunciation, negative flattery, and perhaps shunning of the speaker. But it receives legal protection, same as the Illinois Nazis in Skokie, because if it did not receive such protection then the speech which deserves it might also not receive it.
Who gets to decide? Well, I get to decide for myself that her speech is unworthy of protection. But the First Amendment authors got to decide that it receives protection.
I do not see how a democracy can survive an onslaught of weaponized bullshit
Who should decide? The same people who decreed that the use of saccharine was safer than cyclamates? The bishops who prosecuted Galileo? The engineers who approved the Pinto gas tank design? The executives who said that the corn sweetener formula Coke was as good as the sugar formula? The experts telling us of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
All of these people had strong motives to promote their views. The results, in hindsight, do not make the views look good. But at the time, they were the ones who got to decide.
Coca Cola company avoids charges of furnishing moonshine bottles by changing their operations. They no longer supply those sturdy re-usable glass bottles. I feel sorry for your shine operation, but sorrier for the rest of us who have to supply disposal services and landfill space for the single-use containers they now use.
While this panel may have been consuming controlled substances, they are likely to have the last word. Review "en banc" (all the judges) is rare, and the U.S. Supreme Court takes but a fraction of the cases offered.
In state court, there is often at least one more layer of review. From the trial level, you go to the district court of review, and from there may go up to a highest court in the state. From there, on remarkably rare occasions, you may be able to have the U.S. Supreme Court review the case.
The intent with making further review was probably mostly good. We do not want cases to drag out for years, with appeals upon appeals. A single layer of appeals provides a reasonable degree of finality, even if the reviewing courts beclown themselves.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue
Re: Another bright lining to this decision...
Yes. Costs include things such as filing fees and maybe transcripts. Notably, costs do not generally include attorney fees.
There are some statutes which expressly make attorney fees either recoverable or recoverable as part of the cost of the action, but generally in the U.S. each side pays its own attorneys. See Arcambel v. Wiseman, 3 U.S. 306 (US 1796).
On the post: MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription
Local Blackouts
Local blackouts are not necessarily even a good idea for baseball. Many years ago, before a lot of the readers were born, there was a baseball team in Atlanta. It had a fairly large ballpark, Fulton County Stadium, but fairly small crowds of about 5000-7000 per game.
There was also a local businessman named Turner, who owned a UHF TV station. Back then, UHF was considered sort of second-class: some older TV sets did not have tuners for that. The ones which had tuners generally had less-satisfactory continuous-tune knobs rather than ``click'' tuning for each channel. Propagation was a little dodgy as well, probably due as much to poor antennas in the homes as to lousy tower placement. Echos were common, too. However, chan 17 was fairly low UHF, and Turner had good tower location, so reception in the area was pretty good.
Back then, and probably now, TV station owners had to have something to show on their stations around the adverts. Worse, usually the owners had to pay for the content, even if it was mostly reruns and very old re-runs.
Fortunately for Mr. Turner, he also owned a baseball team. Idea: content for his TV station. He started showing pretty much every home game (and road games, too) on his TV station, no doubt paying himself something for the privilege of doing so. I expect that was some of the TV station's most popular programming.
Those games on the TV had a major effect on attendance at the ball park, too. People watched the games on TV, and then started showing up at the ball park as well. I guess they had gotten in the habit of enjoying the games and perhaps rooting for the team.
I think the UHF TV station also eventually became nationally distributed on cable as well. Since I have no cable and generally do not watch TV, and am hundreds of miles from Atlanta, I cannot be sure of the situation there. But the baseball team did very well after it starting showing the home games on local TV.
On the post: Charter Spectrum Threatens To Ruin Potential Customers Over Debt They Don't Owe
need to see the letter
At least we assume that it is the same letter, as seems incredibly likely. The problem is that neither the original article nor the response here give us the actual text of the letter.
On the post: Billy Mitchell Survives Anti-SLAPP Motion From Twin Galaxies A Second Time
Re: Re: Count me among those at Techdirt who think this ruling i
The first part is beyond what you often see in SLAPP suits. If they identify a specific statement as false, they have gotten over the first hurdle because many claimants do not identify the false statement.
As for ``enough investigation'', well, that is not usually the standard. Times v. Sullivan malice requires knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.
So, simply stating that ``this statement is false and defendant knew it was false'' might get past the motion. You might want a few more facts to show reckless disregard, e.g. def had obtained but ignored specific information, but even that is not going to require you to plead War and Peace.
On the post: One Of The World's Largest Web Tracking Companies Leaks Tons Of Personal Info From An Unsecured Server
Re: Re: Please understand..
The bartender knows what type of beer I like. Distinguish.
On the post: Top Publishers Aim To Own The Entire Academic Research Publishing Stack; Here's How To Stop That Happening
Not Very New or Innovative
Schools have been doing the same thing for years with football conferences. You play mainly games in your own conference. Games against non-conference schools do not count so much.
Here, you would have a very small number of ``important'' publishers. Each school picks one publisher silo. Their research is then tailored to their publisher's needs. Their papers cite mainly other papers published by their own publisher, papers published outside of their silo are less important and given less weight.
Properly implemented, it would help prop up the otherwise somewhat obsolete academic publishing companies.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
Yeah, but here in the ``make believe'' world, many things are going sideways. Car makers cannot get the parts they need. Paint makers cannot get the resins they need. Stores cannot get the paper goods they need. Computer makers cannot get the parts they need, but fortunately my needs are modest enough that older-model computers are adequate to the task.
On the post: Tampa Bay PD's 'Crime-Free Housing' Program Disproportionately Targeted Black Residents, Did Nothing To Reduce Crime
A little background
I have not handled any of these cases down in Hillsborough, but suspect that there are similarities to other areas. So, a few things to know.
Many housing-authority-type leases have no-crime provisions. If anyone in the household commits a crime on the premises, and sometimes off premises, the family can be put out. I do not say that this is sound policy, that is above my pay grade. But it is there, largely due to dim-witted Federal encouragement. So there may be some basis for LL to evict.
If the tenant has counsel, the chances are good that the eviction can be defeated, with fees. The burden is on the LL to prove up the crime, and the statute has a fee-shifting provision. I bet nearly every county, and surely one as large as Hillsborough, has attys who are willing to take on housing authorities.
Eviction is civil, so the standard is preponderence, not reasonable doubt. However, the evidence of the crime is often tightly held by the police, such that the LL may not be able to prove their case. Of course, if the problem is such that neighbors are complaining, the LL will probably have an easy job. But that is a different, and more justified, eviction.
I am sure there are competent attys on the west coast, and they should know these things if they handle LL/Tenant matters.
On the post: Sony Pictures, Defenders Of The Creative Industry, Appears To Be Using Fan Art Without Giving Credit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah copyright hypocrisy...
As the sellers of licenses, they are the very ones whom I would expect to have carefully maintained records. Failing that, they should not sue to enforce, because the burden is supposed to be on the plaintiff to show infringement.
On the post: Court To Sheriff: Sending An Officer To Tell A Teen To Delete Instagram Posts Is So Very Obviously A Rights Violation
Re: Doent this fall back
They do not get that, either. HIPAA.
On the post: Court To Sheriff: Sending An Officer To Tell A Teen To Delete Instagram Posts Is So Very Obviously A Rights Violation
Re: Remedy
A dec action may seem a somewhat empty remedy, but it provides a learning experience for the department in that it does receive a public shaming. Also, in the context of a civil rights action, I expect that they will get to pay fees.
All of this is at taxpayer expense, of course. No offending police will be harmed in their wallets.
On the post: Texas' Unconstitutional Social Media Censorship Bill Challenged In Court, Just As Texas Joins The Legal Fight For Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Bill
Law School Requirements
Such a thing is at least possible, because First Amendment law is an elective and not a required course. Mr. Paxton may never have run into Hurley v. Irish-American GL&B Org. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), because it was not required.
On the post: Southwest's Bizarrely Antagonistic Lawsuit To Stop Consumers From Finding Better Deals
Re: thanks Southwest for publicizing a way to save $ on your fli
It is at least common enough to have a name. They call it ``hidden city'' travel.
On the post: Southwest's Bizarrely Antagonistic Lawsuit To Stop Consumers From Finding Better Deals
Re: Terms of Service
The reason this fails is that the airline is a common carrier. Their prices are supposed to be contained in a tarriff, which is public information.
On the post: Unsealed Documents In Nunes' Family Farm's Lawsuit Against Ryan Lizza Raise More Questions About The Lawsuit Than They Answer
Re:
Not exactly. We can draw inferrences, perhaps, but remember that this is the employees asserting the privilege for themselves rather than the corp or even a corporate rep asserting the privilege. Any inferrence would be against the employee, not the plaintiff.
Still, it looks bad.
If a plaintiff asserts the privilege, then there will be an adverse inferrence. However, that is not the case here. Indeed, it would be difficult for this plaintiff, Nu Star Farms, to assert the privilege because it is not a natural person.
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
In fairness, the Court gave up most pretenses of legitimacy in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), where it ruled that
The court said, id. at 109, that the decision should not be used as precedent, but was limited to ``present circumstances''. Those circumstances were that, absent a ruling against counting votes, a disfavored candidate would be elected.
There have been other decisions, e.g Korematsu, 323 U.S. 214, and Schenck, 249 U.S. 47, which have also prove to be embarrassing. But at least those had the excuse of the fever of war rather than the open humiliation of being results-driven.
On the post: Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School
Re:
Her speech, abhorrent and distasteful though it may be, still receives the same legal protection as yours.
There, fixed that for you.
Her speech deserves denunciation, negative flattery, and perhaps shunning of the speaker. But it receives legal protection, same as the Illinois Nazis in Skokie, because if it did not receive such protection then the speech which deserves it might also not receive it.
Who gets to decide? Well, I get to decide for myself that her speech is unworthy of protection. But the First Amendment authors got to decide that it receives protection.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Threatens Amazon For Selling Books Containing Misinformation; Perhaps Forgetting The 1st Amendment
Re: Larger Issue
Who should decide? The same people who decreed that the use of saccharine was safer than cyclamates? The bishops who prosecuted Galileo? The engineers who approved the Pinto gas tank design? The executives who said that the corn sweetener formula Coke was as good as the sugar formula? The experts telling us of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
All of these people had strong motives to promote their views. The results, in hindsight, do not make the views look good. But at the time, they were the ones who got to decide.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Threatens Amazon For Selling Books Containing Misinformation; Perhaps Forgetting The 1st Amendment
Re: Re: Section 230
Coca Cola company avoids charges of furnishing moonshine bottles by changing their operations. They no longer supply those sturdy re-usable glass bottles. I feel sorry for your shine operation, but sorrier for the rest of us who have to supply disposal services and landfill space for the single-use containers they now use.
On the post: 8th Circuit's Bizarre Ruling In Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Ryan Lizza
Further Review is Unlikely
While this panel may have been consuming controlled substances, they are likely to have the last word. Review "en banc" (all the judges) is rare, and the U.S. Supreme Court takes but a fraction of the cases offered.
In state court, there is often at least one more layer of review. From the trial level, you go to the district court of review, and from there may go up to a highest court in the state. From there, on remarkably rare occasions, you may be able to have the U.S. Supreme Court review the case.
The intent with making further review was probably mostly good. We do not want cases to drag out for years, with appeals upon appeals. A single layer of appeals provides a reasonable degree of finality, even if the reviewing courts beclown themselves.
Next >>