From the brief: “All prior restraints on expression are presumptively constitutional; prior restraints on matters of public concern are even more so.”
Doh! I hate it when I write things in briefs that mean the opposite of what I intended because I didn’t proofread well enough.
The brief asks the court to issue sanctions in this case because the litigation is for an improper purpose. That is, there is no sound legal basis for the filing, so it is an abuse of the judicial system, and the court may punish that.
So, no, it’s not always the best idea to just throw a lawsuit at the wall and see if it sticks.
I knew that sentence was wrong, but I actually Googled the word “presumptively” just to be sure it didn’t have some bizzaro legal meaning. (It doesn’t.)
Yeah, but that almost never actually happens.
Isn’t that what SLAPP statutes are for, in states that have them? How often do they actually come into play, anyway?
The paralegals/1st Year associates at ACLU West Virginia have the coolest bosses ever!
“Plaintiffs argue that Defendants will use their “unique powers” to “access… millions of West Virginians, to bias the potential jurors who will determine their fate” (These special powers must include magic, as West Virginia has under 2 million residents.)”
SASSY!
Thank you!!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
