The jury also awarded attorney's fees which are considerable.
David Gibson reacts:
Daniel McGraw adds a report with details over at Legal Insurrection. With photographs of the courtroom, the family, and team, and a few people you might rather not see.
To the contrary, this professor writing for Forbes understates the malevolent actions of Oberlin and understates the damage done to Gibson's. Although generally fair, he omits important elements that would affect a jury whether or not it's admitted into evidence. (The jury wasn't sequestered, if we know about Oberlin memos and messages to students, then the jury does too. Evan Gerstmann doesn't mention those incredibly damaging items presumably because they weren't actual court evidence.) He thinks the jury went too far.
8 comments:
About time that the saner adults took over.
I am not sure the link you have is correct. Legal Insurrection says the punitive award was $22 million, plus the $11 million compensatory, plus attorney fees. I also think the judge would have dialed back the punitive award if it exceeded the max allowed under Ohio law.
But maybe he is right and LI is wrong.
I am with Allen, I am just glad the jury spanked Oberlin.
The jury did award more, but LI explains the judge can dial it back. So he was right.
Oberlin: They hate you. They really, really hate you.
The judge doesn't have to dial back the punitives. Why would he* given that Oberlin has clearly indicated that it hasn't learned it's lesson?
*I mean other than the usual reason that the judge is a cog in the state machine but let's hope for better.
Amartel, Judges in Ohio are elected, so that may help the bakers. Hatred of PC is what elected Trump.
I was just reading about someone who was defamed, won a big judgement and lost it in an appeals court. Same thing happened to Zimmerman against NBC. Surprisingly Hulk Hogan lawsuit was unsuccessfully appealed but in the end he never got the full 100 million.
They're elected here (Cali), too (at the State Court level). Doesn't matter much because most people don't pay attention. The judges are usually former prosecutors who are dialed in with the police orgs who endorse them. There are rarely any debates or substantive discussion about how to judge; they all come out firmly in favor of justice and fairness and equity. Blah blah blah. To the extent anyone pays attention, they look at the endorsements. Then the judges get in there and act like typical cogs. Sometimes there are good ones but they're few and far between.
Post a Comment