The Court of Appeals moves at a glacial pace with this defamation appeal.
That screenshot was taken today. That "awaiting assignment," I'm told, means the assignment of judges to the case.
And there's a birthday coming up! The first appellate brief was filed Dec. 23, 2022!
For the curious, below is the summary of the issues, as written by attorney John Machulak in the original appeals brief.
In this civil case, the jury returned a verdict of $1.4 million in favor of the Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant Tri-Corp Housing, Inc. (“Tri-Corp”) and against the Third-Party Defendant-Respondent Robert Bauman, (Milwaukee) Alderman (“Bauman”), finding that Bauman defamed Tri-Corp and caused substantial damages. Tri-Corp is a nonprofit organization which provided housing for mentally disabled individuals in a building known as “West Samaria,” which was located near Bauman’s home. Bauman’s conduct caused the closure of West Samaria.
The (Milwaukee County) Circuit Court, the Honorable Pedro A. Colón, ruled that Tri-Corp was a “public figure” and consequently has to prove “actual malice” to sustain a defamation claim against Bauman. In its verdict, the jury specifically found “actual malice.” On post-trial motions, the Circuit Court decided that there was no clear and convincing evidence that Bauman acted with actual malice, changed the corresponding answers to the verdict, and entered judgment in favor of Bauman.
(Gov. Evers has appointed Colon to the state Court of Appeals. He definitely will not be hearing this appeal.)
During the trial, Bauman moved for a directed verdict. The Circuit Court granted the motion as to Tri-Corp’s separate claim of tortious interference but ruled that there was sufficient evidence for Tri-Corp’s defamation claim to be decided by the jury. However, after the jury returned its verdict, the Circuit Court changed the jury’s answers, which reversed the outcome of the case and effectively denied Tri-Corp its right to a jury trial.
Tri-Corp asks the Court of Appeals to consider:
1. Was there sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s answers to the special verdict, where it found that Bauman acted with “actual malice” when he defamed Tri-Corp?
2. Did the Circuit Court err in its finding that Tri-Corp was a public figure, and that consequently, Tri-Corp had to prove “actual malice” on the part of Bauman to prevail on its claim of defamation?
3. Did the Circuit Court err by dismissing Tri-Corp’s tortious interference claim on Bauman’s motion for a directed verdict? The Circuit Court answered “no” to these questions. Tri-Corp contends that all three should be answered “yes.”
コメント