As the list of defamatory statements were generally indicative of actual malice, there is no plain error in the finder of fact's determination that at least some of them were actionable defamation.
Damages, as limited by remittitur, were appropriate.
State interference with advantageous relations tort claim must refer to actual relations, and where there is a simultaneous claim against interference with contractual relations, the interference cannot be double-counted.
In the interests of justice, inadequately developed arguments against the issuance of a permanent injunction against speech can be raised sua sponte by the court.
Injunction against future speech was overbroad, did not recite other potential remedies, and did not sufficiently consider the context of future speech -- vacated.
Concur/Dissent: Argument against injunction was waived; the future interest is speculative; a simple vacatur based on insufficient proof in the record for necessity of the injunction would have sufficed.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2347P-01A.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.