![]() That could loom large in the case's next chapter. Niehoff said the verdict has the potential to set a "dangerous" precedent "where a celebrity can make his sexual exploits an open book then sue for invasion of privacy when a media entity wants to add a chapter." In cases that implicate the First Amendment, Niehoff said stays play an important role because "appellate courts typically have a duty to review the result very carefully." Len Niehoff, a professor who specializes in civil procedure at the University of Michigan Law School, said a losing party in Gawker's position will generally ask for both a stay of judgment and an appeal. The court has indicated it's sympathetic to Gawker's position that the publication of excerpts from the tape is protected by the First Amendment, due in part to how much Hogan talked about his sex life in public.įor example, the court said in a 2014 opinion that it was "clear" Gawker's video and accompanying commentary addressed "matters of public concern" due to the controversy surrounding the sex tape, which was partly "exacerbated" by Hogan himself. Mark Spottswood, an assistant professor at Florida State University's college of law, said that past rulings from the appeals court suggest Hogan "may still have an uphill battle" to collect the damages. Gawker believes those records could well have tilted the trial in its favor, and will bolster its chances on appeal. Earlier this week, the court overturned Campbell's previous ruling to seal an enormous number of documents pertaining to the case. The appeals court, based in Lakeland, Florida, has already reversed a number of Campbell's rulings in the case, most notably her 2013 injunction requiring Gawker to remove the video. Assuming she doesn't, Gawker will then turn to the Second District Court of Appeals, which has been a far more hospitable venue to the defendants than Campbell's court. Related: Hulk Hogan's partner on sex tape is emotional in taped testimonyĬampbell has repeatedly ruled against Gawker throughout the case, raising doubts that she will grant relief from the bond requirement. To avoid posting the bond - or at least to get it substantially reduced - Gawker will first need to ask the judge who presided over the trial, Pamela Campbell. Rose III, the director of Stetson University College of Law's Center for Excellence in Advocacy in Gulfport, Florida. "I would expect that this issue will be litigated, and they might receive some relief, but in the end if a Florida jury finds them liable, a Florida judge really has no reason to treat them with kid gloves on the issue of the bond," said Charles H. Gawker will likely appeal the bond, but eschewing the requirement might be tricky. Denton told Politico Media last year that the company made $6.7 million of profit on $45 million of net revenue in 2014. That requirement is capped at $50 million, a burden that would obviously still be onerous to Gawker. Petersburg, Florida courthouse on Monday to determine whether to impose punitive damages.Ĭomplicating the matter for Gawker is a Florida state law that requires appealing parties to post a bond for the full amount of monetary damages. The six-person jury - comprising four women and two men - decided to award Hogan $15 million more than that. ![]() "We don't keep $100 million in the bank, no," Denton said last summer. Daulerio and the site's parent company for $100 million over the publication of excerpts from his sex tape in 2012. Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, had sued Denton, former editor A.J. ![]() The specter of the lawsuit is what prompted him to sell a minority stake in Gawker earlier this year, a first for a company that had been proudly independent. Related: Hulk Hogan jury to be spared watching full 30 minute sex tapeĪt first glance, the $115 million ruling does indeed look apocalyptic for Gawker.ĭenton, for his part, certainly never took the case lightly. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |