Can the Newton's and AU pursue slander and libel charges against.....

[AUISALL1345162868 0]

If they are cleared by the NCAA? I would assume they could against the writers and newspapers or websites that have published stories that have already decided the Newton's are guilty and encouarging others to assume guilt and not vote Cam for Heisman.

[Tiger Growlin 0]

They can but most likely won't be successful. Using words like allegedly clears them as well as the fact that each alleged allegations made was contributed to a source, Bond. Its Bond's word against Rogers, who currently is in hiding. They got statements from Bond, the Newtons, MSU, AU, SEC, and the NCAA.

[Sidbowman 0]

The reward in doing so, even though they may have a slight right to pursue, won't outweigh the litigation expenses in doing so. It's just not worth the effort IMHO.

However, what this is doing, and depending on how much the team is reading about/listening to/acknowledging the allegations, is just giving them additional motivation now to go out and stomp into the turf, any team that comes before them. Actions speak louder and words, and retribution for Auburn is going to come through the old fashioned way of putting up wins.

At the end of the day/season, the media can say all they want and slander all they can, but if AU is 12 & 0 or 13 & 0, then there's absolutely nothing you can take away from that and that is the ultimate answer to any critic.

[AU Counsel 64]

Cam would qualify as a public figure under NY Times v. Sullivan, and could only succeed on a libel claim if he can show actual malice.

However, I don't think Cecil Newton qualifies as a public figure.  With allegations and innuendo in print or online hinting that he may have taken the money to repair his church, I do not believe he would have to meet the actual malice standard in pursuing a libel claim. However, he will have a harder time showing real damages than Cam would.

This is more about crappy journalism and allegations without attribution to sources, as print journalists are under increasing pressue to compete with the blogosphere, where journalistic standards are negligible in many cases.  I'm more interested in the Urban Meyer angle.  It wouldn't take a month for the NCAA to discover irregularities in the Newton bank statements.  Now if people find that the Newtons just bought a fancy house, new luxury cars, etc., you would have something to pursue.  But no one has yhe et to reference any evidence besides a conversation between a MSU booster and an agent/runner. 

The evidence is absurd at best as a justification for the amount of media coverage it is receiving.  And yes, I want us to play Florida in Atlanta...

[AUISALL1345162868 0]

I don't know that it wouldn't be worth pursuing. I imagine that there would plenty of attorneys that would take the case on a 30%-50% contingency. It would cost the Newton's nothing but some time.

Also, by harming Cam's character, what is the value of dropping in the draft (if that happened) and there certainly has to be a large dollar value on winning or not winning the Heisman.

If it isn't true I would go after all them out of the principal and to clear my name.

[legal_eagle 0]

Cam would qualify as a public figure under NY Times v. Sullivan, and could only succeed on a libel claim if he can show actual malice.

However, I don't think Cecil Newton qualifies as a public figure.  With allegations and innuendo in print or online hinting that he may have taken the money to repair his church, I do not believe he would have to meet the actual malice standard in pursuing a libel claim. However, he will have a harder time showing real damages than Cam would.

This is more about crappy journalism and allegations without attribution to sources, as print journalists are under increasing pressue to compete with the blogosphere, where journalistic standards are negligible in many cases.  I'm more interested in the Urban Meyer angle.  It wouldn't take a month for the NCAA to discover irregularities in the Newton bank statements.  Now if people find that the Newtons just bought a fancy house, new luxury cars, etc., you would have something to pursue.  But no one has yhe et to reference any evidence besides a conversation between a MSU booster and an agent/runner. 

The evidence is absurd at best as a justification for the amount of media coverage it is receiving.  And yes, I want us to play Florida in Atlanta...

[/quote

I agree but will add there may be room to argue since he is a minister this may be deemed to have an impact on his business.  His actions in adhering to rules, etc is part of his job. Based on many state laws (includnig GA where his harm is felt, doesnt require a showing of damages when related to business.  Still have the opportunities to correct, etc.  I have not researched this in several years, however, this was the way I remember the applicable law.

Beyond this, the only true action I see being taken is injunction (if any).  Freedom of press is a bear in this situation. 

[topangatiger 0]

I do not practice law in AL, and am not familiar with nuances of AL law and this is not legal advice. That said, punitive damages are the big stick in defamation cases. Punitives ordinarily require a showing of "malice," which includes reckless disregard for falsity. I have certainly seen numerous articles with headlines suggesting AU's recruitment is in question - as there is not a single fact supporting this, I would think AU has claims of its own. Even if those claims would be prohibitively expensive to litigate, they could certainly be used as leverage to extract full and unreserved retractions and apologies from the speakers once this BS is finally debunked. AU has the resources; frankly in my experience this could be accomplished with minimal effort and expense.

It would be interesting from an academic standpoint to test the proposition that although Cam is a student-athlete, nevertheless the allegations are libel per se in tending to injure him in his calling, trade or profession or in tending to accuse him of a "crime." Again, under the "reckless disregard" standard (if applicable), punitives are the goal. And equally applicable, extracting full and prostrate apologies and retractions.

Side note: UA has too long dominated the legal profession in AL. It's nice to feel the domination is not complete - thanks Counsel & L/Eagle.  Here's hoping we can all make the trip to New York for Cam's induction, followed shortly thereafter by a trip to Glendale, where Cam will force-feed rushing yardage to the Ducks until their livers become a delicious foie gras; Nick Fairley expected to contribute by grinding their bones to make the crackers.  War Eagle!

[oldaufeller 367]

We all know Cam is an amateur athlete, but his name has a brand value.  It is marketable and has a market value.  A good marketing firm could give Cecil a real accurate estimate of that value and the diminished value from the few journalists who blogged the "don't vote for Cam for Heisman because.." based on unfounded charges.  In a number of industries, malice does not have to be the only criteria.  Law, medicine, and engineering are also liable for professional negligence.  Malpractice if you will.  I think this is the most probable course for successful litigation if he chooses to do so.  Whatever he (they) choose to to, I support them.  Family is that way.  WE

[AU Counsel 64]

For a public figure (and Cam Newton is such), actual malice is a requirement to show libel, based on how the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on the freedom of the press.  Auburn University would also have to demonstrate malice, and I don't think Auburn University has much of a claim based on the reporting anyway.  Again, Cecil Newton probably has the best claim here.  Libel suits are rarely successful, and large media outlets employ very capable media attorneys.  However, they lack risk management skills sometimes in how they decide what to print, and their attorneys are in a reactive role, not a proactive role. 

[jsb29 0]

I do not practice law in AL, and am not familiar with nuances of AL law and this is not legal advice. That said, punitive damages are the big stick in defamation cases. Punitives ordinarily require a showing of "malice," which includes reckless disregard for falsity. I have certainly seen numerous articles with headlines suggesting AU's recruitment is in question - as there is not a single fact supporting this, I would think AU has claims of its own. Even if those claims would be prohibitively expensive to litigate, they could certainly be used as leverage to extract full and unreserved retractions and apologies from the speakers once this BS is finally debunked. AU has the resources; frankly in my experience this could be accomplished with minimal effort and expense.

It would be interesting from an academic standpoint to test the proposition that although Cam is a student-athlete, nevertheless the allegations are libel per se in tending to injure him in his calling, trade or profession or in tending to accuse him of a "crime." Again, under the "reckless disregard" standard (if applicable), punitives are the goal. And equally applicable, extracting full and prostrate apologies and retractions.

Side note: UA has too long dominated the legal profession in AL. It's nice to feel the domination is not complete - thanks Counsel & L/Eagle.  Here's hoping we can all make the trip to New York for Cam's induction, followed shortly thereafter by a trip to Glendale, where Cam will force-feed rushing yardage to the Ducks until their livers become a delicious foie gras; Nick Fairley expected to contribute by grinding their bones to make the crackers.  War Eagle!

Is that like fried balogna, or is it more along the lines of beany weenies?

[1974AUgrad 23]

I wish Cam, Cecil and AU had a good lawsuit here, but I have to agree with the 2 posts of AU Counsel--the requirement of proving actual malice for Cam and AU would probably be insurmountable. You basically have to prove that the news source knew or reasonably should have known that what they wrote was FALSE. Not that it was unproven (yet), but that it was false. And I say this as an AU grad who makes his living representing plaintiffs in lawsuits.

One poster said that a lawyer would want the case for 30-50% of the recovery, but plaintiffs' lawyers aren't in the business of filing lawsuits they don't believe they have a good chance of winning. It would be like me offering you 50% of a business proposition in your chosen occupation. If you looked at it and realized it was probably doomed to fail, you wouldn't choose to invest your time and money in it.

For a public figure (and Cam Newton is such), actual malice is a requirement to show libel, based on how the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on the freedom of the press.  Auburn University would also have to demonstrate malice, and I don't think Auburn University has much of a claim based on the reporting anyway.  Again, Cecil Newton probably has the best claim here.  Libel suits are rarely successful, and large media outlets employ very capable media attorneys.  However, they lack risk management skills sometimes in how they decide what to print, and their attorneys are in a reactive role, not a proactive role. 

[RockyMtnTiger 0]

I say hire Matlock he is dang good lawyer

[WarEagle10 77]

I say hire Matlock he is dang good lawyer

With Perry Mason being co-counsel. Those two would get to the bottom of things. They would have Shlabach(sp), Forde, and the NYT's guy squealing about things they did in elementary school.

[rockfordpi 91]

I say hire Matlock he is dang good lawyer

With Perry Mason being co-counsel. Those two would get to the bottom of things. They would have Shlabach(sp), Forde, and the NYT's guy squealing about things they did in elementary school.

Paging Gusty Yearout, Paging Gusty Yearout!

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

Hire a private investigator, and find out where all the bodies are buried....metaphorically speaking.

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

BTW AUCounsel....is having a particular agenda, and possibly a conspiracy to discredit not considered malice in the legal sense?