It's actually not that simple. In order to actually WIN a defamation case you have to:
1) prove statements were false
2) be able to show that THOSE statements have actually resulted in harm to one's reputation and/or business

Also, and no one is talking about it that I've seen on here any way, but the defamatory statement must be unprivileged in nature (Privileged statement means a witness testifying at trial who makes a statement that is both false and injurious will be immune to a lawsuit for defamation because testifying at trial is privileged). Doubt the testimony to NCAA would be considered privileged, but I'm sure the defense will argue that those statements are privileged (assuming they were false, which you've still yet to prove...only have proven variations, which are typical, allowable, and does not make the major points of the case false).

quote:
Commercial Disparagement - I agree that this is something that would be very hard to be proven. However, it could be argued that the intentional actions of defamation leading to the result of loss of revenue could fall within this law. Long shot and doubt it would happen.

yeah, but again given the circumstances surrounding the case, how do you anticipate RR being able to PROVE lost revenue is a result of this testimony and not a result of the prolonged investigation, poor on field results, etc? You can't. There are too many external factors to pin it on these statements as a singular factor.

quote:
Civil Conspiracy - You kind of went off point on this one. If they conspired to knowing make false statements and allegations in any attempt that would harm the reputation and character of the business, then it does not matter if their bigger agenda was another entity. Having said that, I'm curious to see how this would actually be argued.

I see zero possibility that it is ever PROVEN that a conspiracy took place. In a civil case you have to prove your case by a preponderance of evidence. Without phone records (good luck getting that), admission, or other evidence, this one is a nonstarter.

quote:
Having said that, the defamation charge will absolutely stick.

Might. I'd be stunned though. Have to prove they were knowingly false statements AND they caused harm. Might be able to prove they were false (if they were), but gonna be hard to prove those statements caused harm (b/c if you prove they were false then RR likely not disassociated.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by AshLSU

Member since Nov 2015

12868 posts

Posted on 6/14/17 at 4:22 pm to bamasgot13

quote:
It's actually not that simple. In order to actually WIN a defamation case you have to: 1) prove statements were false 2) be able to show that THOSE statements have actually resulted in harm to one's reputation and/or business

Don't you also have to prove that it was done with malicious intent?

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by tigerinridgeland

Mississippi

Member since Aug 2006

7638 posts

Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:36 am to bamasgot13

quote:
Might. I'd be stunned though. Have to prove they were knowingly false statements AND they caused harm. Might be able to prove they were false (if they were), but gonna be hard to prove those statements caused harm (b/c if you prove they were false then RR likely not disassociated.

If the defamatory statement is about a private figure and a matter of private concern, the defendant may be held to a negligence standard. I would assume that RR would likely be a private person for this purpose, and the matter of giving merchandise to an athlete would be a private concern. However, the allegations are that the named defendants knowingly made false statements, so the plaintiff will have to prove defendants made intentionally false statements. That is a pretty straight forward issue, but may not be easy to actually prove. In this situation negligence is not really an issue as to the core issue regarding statements that the football player-defendants received free stuff from RR. Those statements were made truthfully or with knowledge of falsity, though falsity may not be provable.

If false statements were made in writing (libel), or can be deemed slander per se (oral statements that by their content are such, in this context, that would harm one's business reputation for things like honesty and integrity or competence), presumed damages may be permitted, no proof of actual damages required, though this is perhaps still a gray area constitutionally. I would agree that actual damages would be very difficult to prove. But in any event, proof of actual damage may not be required.

There also may be some statute of limitations problems for the plaintiff, since the statute of limitations for defamation in Mississippi is one year. Depending on when the statements were made and when plaintiffs learned of the allegedly defamatory statements, or should have learned of them, some or all of the claims could be could be time-barred.

This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 7:45 am

1 ...

Report Post

SEC Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board