http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/02/first-circuit-to-staples-employee-libel-yeah-weve-got-that/ Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:33:34 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/02/first-circuit-to-staples-employee-libel-yeah-weve-got-that/comment-page-1/#comment-17 Robert Deschene Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:59:29 +0000 http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=604#comment-17 I agree that the Noonan case doesn't mean the sky is falling on America. Whether or not one ultimately agrees with the panel's interpretation of the 1902 statute, however, I do find it curious that the panel did not consider certification of the statutory interpretation to the Mass. SJC. Given the U.S. Supreme Court's intervening redefinition of "actual malice" in Sullivan, and the the tenor of the SJC's Shaari decision, the Noonan case would seem to meet all the prerequsities for certification: there is no controlling SJC precedent to give a definitive answer in Noonan's favor, the course that the SJC likely would take if squarely presented with the issue is at least subject to serious doubt in light of Sullivan and Shaari, and the question raises very troubling public policy questions, Trull, 187 F.3d 88, 101 (CA1 99) (noting serious policy concerns as reason for certification). In light of the remand (not to mention the fact that the case has already been through two panel hearings), certification also does not seem to threaten undue delay. I wonder if the panel was reluctant to certify because Staples was the party who removed the case from state court. Very interesting and difficult case! I agree that the Noonan case doesn’t mean the sky is falling on America. Whether or not one ultimately agrees with the panel’s interpretation of the 1902 statute, however, I do find it curious that the panel did not consider certification of the statutory interpretation to the Mass. SJC. Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervening redefinition of “actual malice” in Sullivan, and the the tenor of the SJC’s Shaari decision, the Noonan case would seem to meet all the prerequsities for certification: there is no controlling SJC precedent to give a definitive answer in Noonan’s favor, the course that the SJC likely would take if squarely presented with the issue is at least subject to serious doubt in light of Sullivan and Shaari, and the question raises very troubling public policy questions, Trull, 187 F.3d 88, 101 (CA1 99) (noting serious policy concerns as reason for certification). In light of the remand (not to mention the fact that the case has already been through two panel hearings), certification also does not seem to threaten undue delay. I wonder if the panel was reluctant to certify because Staples was the party who removed the case from state court. Very interesting and difficult case!

]]> http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/2009/02/first-circuit-to-staples-employee-libel-yeah-weve-got-that/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Steve Sat, 14 Mar 2009 00:41:19 +0000 http://www.mattcameronlaw.com/?p=604#comment-14 Seems like a back door claim of false light/invasion of privacy. Does Mass. not specifically recognize such torts? Or is it established that truth is a defense to those as well? Seems like a back door claim of false light/invasion of privacy. Does Mass. not specifically recognize such torts? Or is it established that truth is a defense to those as well?

]]>