Connolly v samuelson. Connolly v. Samuelson, 671 F. Supp. 1312 (D. Kan. 1987) :: Justia 2022-12-27

Connolly v samuelson Rating: 7,2/10 995 reviews

Connolly v Samuelson is a legal case that dealt with the issue of defamation in the context of online speech. The case arose when Christopher Connolly, a former police officer, sued Todd Samuelson, a blogger, for defamation after Samuelson wrote a blog post accusing Connolly of corruption and abuse of power.

The case went to trial in a federal court in Massachusetts, where the jury found in favor of Connolly and awarded him damages of $2.5 million. However, the case was later overturned on appeal, with the appeals court finding that Samuelson's statements were protected by the First Amendment as opinion and not defamation.

One of the key issues in the case was the question of whether Samuelson's statements were factual or opinion. In defamation cases, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false statement of fact that damaged the plaintiff's reputation. However, opinions are not considered to be factual statements and are therefore protected by the First Amendment.

The appeals court found that Samuelson's statements were opinions rather than factual statements, and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The court cited several factors in reaching this conclusion, including the fact that Samuelson used hyperbolic language and made it clear that he was expressing his own opinion rather than presenting factual information.

The Connolly v Samuelson case is significant because it highlights the importance of the First Amendment in protecting online speech and the role of courts in interpreting the line between factual statements and opinions. It also serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of making false and defamatory statements online, and the need for caution when expressing strong opinions about others.

She sued Samuelson for damages Is Samuelson liable Connolly v Samuelson 671

connolly v samuelson

The relevant information before the trial court was as follows. Samuelson learned of the walk at the same time as all other members of the tour group. Contained in the brochure was the following information: International Tours of Manhattan act only as agents for the passenger in regard to travel, whether by railroad, motorcoach, motorcar, boat or airplane and assume no liability for injury, damage, loss, accident, delay or irregularity which may be occasioned either by reason of defect in any vehicle or for any reason whatsoever, or through the acts of default of any company or person engaged in conveying the passenger or in carrying out the arrangements of the tour. Cunard Line Limits, 63 Ill. However, since the parties have not come forward with any arguments concerning these issues, and given the difficulty of obtaining South African law, the court will apply the substantive law of Kansas to all of plaintiff's claims. The ranger refused both of plaintiff's requests and would not allow her to return to the base camp alone or accompanied by her husband or one of the guides.


Next

Dixie Elec. Mem. v. La Public Service Com'n, Supreme Court of Louisiana, State Courts, COURT CASE

connolly v samuelson

Defendant Brown now appears pursuant to the express finding of the court that there was no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal. For the reasons set forth below, Samuelson's motion is granted. . In Stansell, the plaintiff's decedent was killed in a plane crash in Peru. It is so ordered. No instructions as to the nature of the walking tour or special attire were given prior to leaving the lodge compound. As the court noted in Lavine, there is a fallacy, which seems to be popularly accepted, that for any personal injury, however caused, some person should be liable in damages.

Next

Connolly v. Samuelson, No. 85 C 2301.

connolly v samuelson

The court found no act or omission in Illinois on the part of the defendant: "Even assuming that she was in charge of selecting the airline, this act was not performed in Illinois. British Overseas Airways Corp. Furlow failed to send a copy of the letter to Steve Roger's attorney, Thomas Strakeljahn. This, however, is not the law and should not be the law. The tour group split into two walking parties.


Next

Connolly v. Samuelson, Civ. A. No. 86

connolly v samuelson

This, however, is not the law and should not be the law. Samuelson wore similar shoes, which she considered safe for the walk. For purposes of this motion, the following material facts are uncontroverted: 1. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ASPEN, District Judge: Plaintiff Mercedes Connolly "Connolly" , a citizen of Illinois, brings this diversity action against defendant Judy Samuelson "Samuelson" , a Kansas citizen. Mountain State Construction Co. In fact, Samuelson swears that Connolly and her husband are the only Illinois residents with whom she can remember doing business. The court found no act or omission in Illinois on the part of the defendant: "Even assuming that she was in charge of selecting the airline, this act was not performed in Illinois.

Next

CONNOLLY v. SAMUELSON

connolly v samuelson

At the time, Dixie maintained a three phase distribution line along Doyle Road, approximately 663 feet north of the subdivision. Psychological Review, 50, 171-174. While exploring, plaintiff slipped on a rock on the beach and injured herself. The injury to Connolly occurred in South Africa, not the Land of Lincoln. A-G in defendant's reply brief. Doing Business in Illinois Connolly alleges in her complaint that Samuelson "does business in the State of Illinois.

Next

Connolly v. Samuelson, 671 F. Supp. 1312 (D. Kan. 1987) :: Justia

connolly v samuelson

Furlow's patients are Illinois residents, many of whom have been referred to Mayo through Illinois doctors; 2 Mayo Clinic and Dr. The defendants' tour was considered a scheduled motorized safari. In each case the Illinois Supreme Court determined that the defendants were doing business within the state; the Court therefore did not consider the correctness of the lower court's jurisdictional finding based on tortious acts. Samuelson was designated the tour escort for the tour. Likewise, decedent's death occurred in Peru. .

Next

Rogers v. Furlow, 699 F. Supp. 672 (N.D. Ill. 1988) :: Justia

connolly v samuelson

. The defendants were designated as agents in the United States to promote the Congress and the accompanying tours. Furlow regularly correspond with Illinois health professionals as part of follow-up care; 3 Mayo Clinic publishes and disseminates a newsletter nationally and, in addition, holds medical seminars in Rochester in which a large number of Illinois physicians attend; 4 Dr. Clearly, under Kansas choice-of-law rules, the doctrine of lex loci delicto would require the court to apply South African law to plaintiff's negligence claims. Plaintiff brings this action for negligence, breach of contract and breach of implied warranty against the defendants who organized and promoted a tour of South Africa.

Next

Connolly V. Samuelson

connolly v samuelson

On a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of providing sufficient evidence to support jurisdiction. Bolus contacted United Penn Bank Bank to obtain financing for the project and was referred to Emmanuel Ziobro, an assistant vice president. Pending before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment. Moreover, their business had nothing to do with Illinois, but dealt with a tour of South Africa that was arranged in Kansas. Plaintiff also alleges that the defendants are responsible for the wrongful acts of their agent, the ranger at the reserve, who forced plaintiff to continue with the tour even though plaintiff had requested to return to the base camp. In each case the Illinois Supreme Court determined that the defendants were doing business within the state; the Court therefore did not consider the correctness of the lower court's jurisdictional finding based on tortious acts. Since June, 1977, Dixie Electric Membership Corporation's policy has been to charge all developers of subdivisions making initial inquiries after that date for the difference between the anticipated cost of installation and maintenance of underground electric service facilities and the anticipated cost of overhead electric facilities.

Next