Appellate judges have the exact same degrees as any other judge or early every lawyer, for that matter. They all (almost always) have at least J.D. degrees as well as sometimes having specialized such as an LLM or M.L. While it is not constitutionally required for a judge to have been a lawyer or have a J.D., 99.99% of them have them.
Dear Oberlin Community,
I’m writing to share with you this statement regarding the Board of Trustees’ decision to appeal the jury verdict in the litigation arising out of a student protest in 2016.
We continue advancing Oberlin’s educational mission and the One Oberlin plan. Here is the link to the plan. It is designed to preserve what is special about Oberlin, channel the power of a residential liberal arts education in new ways, and build on the College’s standing as one of the world’s great institutions of higher education.
I look forward to working with you on the One Oberlin initiative.
Chris Canavan ’84
Chair of the Board of Trustees
Oberlin College
(formerly Director, Global Policy Development, at Soros Fund Management)
“The decision is grounded in the board’s fiduciary responsibility to the College’s long-term financial health,” said Board Chairman Chris Canavan. Left standing, the verdict could also set a troubling precedent for those institutions, like Oberlin, that are committed to respecting free speech, he said.
The team includes First Amendment attorneys Lee Levine and Seth Berlin from the Washington, D.C., office of the national law firm Ballard Spahr and appellate attorneys Benjamin Sassé and Irene Keyse-Walker from the Cleveland office of the national law firm Tucker Ellis. These attorneys will work with trial counsel from Taft Stettinius & Hollister of Cleveland and from Wickens Herzer Panza of Avon to address the intersection of defamation law, First Amendment principles, and Ohio tort reform doctrines this case raises.
“This case never should have gone to the jury in light of the heightened speech protections in the Ohio Constitution, and the trial court made several procedural errors during trial that led to this verdict. Among other things, those errors prevented jurors from hearing critical information about the original incident,” Sassé said.
https://www.oberlin.edu/news/oberlin-appeals-verdict-sets-troubling-free-speech-precedentI’m writing to share with you this statement regarding the Board of Trustees’ decision to appeal the jury verdict in the litigation arising out of a student protest in 2016.
This factually challenged Soros-widget doesn't even realize that the facts determined it was not a "student protest", but the defamatory actions of Oberlin admin (Senior VP and Dean of Students) that compelled the $30m+ verdict for the Gibson's. That's indeed precisely why the Judge let the case proceed to Jury, who were not enamored with globalist interests crushing a local company by defmaing.
Regardless of who was defma’d (?), it will be tough to pin it on Oberlin on appeal.
Forbes analysis is that it should be settled. Legally, the college may be on strong ground, but their childish emails in the public record mean it’s bad publicity.
Only obstacle left is Gibson’s lawyer.
Two jury verdicts in favor of Gibson’s Bakery and its owners resulted in $11 million compensatory damages rendered on June 7, 2019, and $33 million in punitive damages rendered on June 13, 2019, after a separate punitive damages trial. The combined $44 million was reduced by the Court under Ohio’s tort caps to just over $25 million. The Court also awarded over $6.5 million in legal fees and costs against defendants on top of the damages. Defendants were required to post a $36 million bond to secure the judgment pending appeal. Gibson’s has filed a cross appeal to restore the full $44 million verdicts, which added to the attorney’s fee award, would the total to over $50 million if Gibson’s is successful on appeal. The cross appeal is “conditional” because it’s only a reaction to the appeal; had there been no appeal, there would have been no cross appeal.
https://www.scribd.com/document/431716760/Gibson-s-Bakery-v-Oberlin-College-Appeal-Plaintiffs-Docketing-Statement-for-Cross-AppealProbable issues for appeal:
Whether the trial court’s application of Ohio’s statutory damages caps to the facts of this case violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights: Whether the trial court correctly applied Ohio’s statutory damages caps to the facts of this case; Whether the trial court erroneously excluded certain expert witness testimony proffered by Plaintiffs (conditional cross appeal): Whether the trial court erroneously determined the burden of proof on defamation during summary judgment (conditional cross appeal); Whether the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs’ slander claim (conditional cross appeal)
A long way of saying, “We’d like to quit now because we can’t win an appeal.” Stick to bread, bakers!
Ted Koppel was almost even-handed.
Agree, even-handed. An appellate judge won’t go north of lawyer’s fees. The university just wasn’t that involved. I’m not sure the store owner can make a citizen’s arrest for a misdemeanor.
More fact-less pontificating from a vile granola-eating know-nothing trail-walker who was pleased as punch to gleefully cheer on the death of an honorable man from cancer. Stick to the woods, loser.
jesseriley wrote:
Agree, even-handed. An appellate judge won’t go north of lawyer’s fees. The university just wasn’t that involved. I’m not sure the store owner can make a citizen’s arrest for a misdemeanor.
None of this belongs in court, and how Oberlin is involved is still an open question. Wasn’t the man 91 years old? It seems strange that he was working or suing anyone as a pastime. Or even giving interviews in a news article, for that matter.
The mods deleted your previous post. Guess they found it “vile.”
Anyone cheering on the impending death of an honorable man from cancer should be permanently banned from the boards, especially vile granola-eating woods-walkers.
That means you, dirtbag.
Seeing into the future ... wrote:
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/09/28/former-college-campuses-redevelopment-mixed-use/
They should replace them with bakeries!!
So far, the infinitely-funded Oberlin has 13 lawyers docketed on the Appeals case, not including those liaisoning on First Amendment issues. Each one could be rating at 10000 dollars or more a day. Now they've spliced in with Cleveland media conglomerates (with more lawyer firms in tow), who claim it's in the best interests of the public for the grandson's FB account to be unsealed (even though the Defendants never brought this forth as evidence in the trial, and they were only submitted in the first place on the grounds they'd be confidential anyway).Specifically, Media Movants seek an order unsealing Exhibit G to the affidavit of CaryM. Snyder, which was filed with defendants combined reply brief in support of their motions for summary judgment ... no higher interest outweighs the news media’s and the public's constitutional right of access.... Exhibit G is believed to contain information directly related to the allegations of racial profiling that spurred the student protest that is at the heart of this Lawsuit and, about which, the public has a right to know.
The exhibit is comprised entirely of material from non-party Allyn D. Gibson’s Facebook account that largely pre-dates the events giving rise to the above-captioned matter. As noted by the Plaintiffs, this material was the subject of one of Plaintiffs’ pre-trial motions in limine. Specifically, on May 8, 2019, the Court issued a preliminary ruling excluding the presentation of Allyn D. Gibson’s Facebook content as character evidence, but withheld ruling on the question of whether it could be introduced to reflect the reputation of Gibson’s Bakery in the community. At trial, the Defendants made no attempt to introduce these materials as evidence of the Bakery’s reputation in the community. With this procedural context and at this juncture, the Court is not persuaded by the Defendants’ arguments that it should make a post-trial order regarding materials that the Defendants opted to file under seal nearly six months ago in accordance with an agreed protective order that they drafted and stipulated to.
The "media" argument is that to allow the Public to see all the Facts presented to the Court. But the Court rejected this Facebook account as evidence (to say nothing of concluding it was a Fact presented), and the Defendants never used it. How could it matter to the Public, if the Defendants (Oberlin et al) didn't even think it mattered to the Jury? And why did they wait many months after the Verdict, if this is of such vital importance to the Public? Why not file contemporaneously (August 28) with Oberlin's demand to unseal? This is an abuse of process.
Moreover, there are many other documents, some potentially embarrassing to Oberlin College, that were filed under seal and the unsealing of which is not sought by the Media Movants. Cui bono?
https://www.scribd.com/document/434087543/Gibson-s-Bakery-v-Oberlin-College-WEWS-TV-Et-Al-Motion-to-Unseal-Facebook-RecordsGibson’s could make a little donation to a powerful politician, say in D.C., and request a little investigation into the other side (no quid pro quo), and I bet Oberlin would forget all about free speech & lengthy appeals. Then Gibson’s could get a very favorable result very quickly, during the short time the politician is still in office.
Interesting, Oberlin is in Jim Jordan’s district. Don’t think he’s on the school’s side here, but he certainly was on OSU’s side during the homosexual rape cases when he was wrestling coach there. Guess he only sells out regarding real crimes.