“...an online claim made by a legal analyst at MSNBC against a former White House attorney in the Trump administration is potentially defamatory.”
A court doesn’t make a ruling like that. If they are going to make a decision as a ruling then it is either deflamatory or not. There is no potential. They can’t set precidence with potential and that’s what they do with every ruling.
wy69
I don’t think it is a ruling. I think it is just saying there is merit for a case.
The court refused to grant a motion for dismissal by the defense. Routine lawyering. Amounts to the same thing. The word “potential” was used by a writer in the article, not the court.
“A court doesn’t make a ruling like that.”
I suggest you quit playing lawyer.
Admittedly, the article is not technically accurate, but a ruling like this is very common in litigation. Typically, a defendant will file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), alleging that the plaintiff has filed to state a cause of action. The judge must then examine the complaint and assume that all facts stated in it are proven true, and if so, does the plaintiff have right to recover. This ruling is very bad news for the defendant, because it means that the case is likely to go to a jury for a determination of whether or not the facts are proven or not. At the very least, it means that the defendant will up to his ears in litigation costs, and it usually prompts settlement negotiations.
It’s not a final judgement; it’s an interlocutory ruling, most likely denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
That’s not true. Weissman was arguing that statements like this cannot be found to be defamation as a matter of law. The court is saying that the allegations of the plaintiff would be sufficient to sustain a verdict of defamation if a jury found them to be after trial. The issue is now up to the jury.