Affirmative Debate
Good morning everyone, my name is K- McCafferty and I stand resolute with the court’s decision to dismiss the complaint, among other things, (1) that the statement in Reunited (Ms. Slaton’s book) expressing her belief that Vinnie (The Plaintiff) is her biological father are non-actionable opinion based on disclosed facts; and (2) that referring to Vinnie as a “Lothario” (a man who behaves selfishly and irresponsibly in his sexual relationships with women) and “player was not defamatory and was likewise opinion.
Ms. Pam Slaton is an investigative genealogist who specializes in locating missing family, friends and loved ones by day and by night she is a mother of two teenage boys. Slaton is an adoptee herself and went on her
…show more content…
You're my daughter.
You were born on my birthday.' (Id., at 146).
4. I asked to see some pictures of Priscilla when she was young. . . . He went into the other room and brought out an old shoe box. It was full of pictures . . . of various women. There must have been hundreds in there. Vinnie was such a player. For a moment, I felt sorry for Priscilla. She was one in a string of Vinnie's conquests.
In chapter 8 of Reunited chronicles Ms. Slaton relationship with “big Vinnie” grew and she was plagued by nagging doubt whether Vinnie is her real father? She eventually arranges a DNA testing in order to know once and for all, who her biological father is. The test proved to be inconclusive, but knows in her heart, deep down inside the Vinnie is her father she ends the chapter with full warmth and affection for Vinnie, the man she believes to be her father.
And then “Vinnie” sued. In April 2013, plaintiff Vincent Oleniak instituted a libel action against Slaton, her co-author Marshall and the publisher of Reunited in New York State Supreme Court, New York County. In his complaint, Oleniak alleges that Reunited falsely accuses him of being Slaton’s father and of acknowledging his paternity. Oleniak admits in the complaint that he indeed had an unmarried sexual relationship with Slaton’s biological mother and had a child (Vinnie Jr.) from an out-of-wedlock relationship with another woman, but asserts that he is not Slaton’s
…show more content…
Sources
Balin, R., & Bayard, S. (2014, June 25). New York Decision Protects Author's Speculation on Paternity as Opinion Based on Disclosed Facts — Oleniak v. Slaton. Retrieved November 24, 2015, from http://www.medialawmonitor.com/2014/06/new-york-decision-protects-authors-speculation-on-paternity-as-opinion-based-on-disclosed-facts-oleniak-v-slaton/
Blake, M. (2013, April 12). 'Long-lost father' sues genealogist who appeared on Oprah for claiming she's his biological daughter in new book. Retrieved November 24, 2015, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308052/Long-lost-father-sues-genealogist-claiming-shes-biological-daughter-Oprah.html
VINCENT OLENIAK, Plaintiff, v. PAMELA SLATON, SAMANTHA MARSHALL, HOLTZBRINCK PUBLISHERS, LLC, MacMILLAN PUBLISHERS, INC. and ST. MARTINS PRESS, LLC, Defendants. (n.d.). Retrieved November 24, 2015, from https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1538934135776530859&q=oleniak v. slaton&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1
OLENIAK v. SLATON. (n.d.). Retrieved November 24, 2015, from http://www.leagle.com/decision/In NYCO 20140602301/OLENIAK v.
Procedural History The Supreme Court, Appellate, second division modified the the judgment and ordered that the custody of the youngest child remain with the mother. Husband appealed. The Court of Appeals, Jasen,J; held that after the custody of the two older children had been awarded to the husband, it was appropriate for special term to award of the youngest child to the husband in the light of the younger child’s ambivalence as to which of her parents she would prefer to live with and her strong preference to live with two older
Judge Fahey felt that affidavits provided by Dascoli’s mother and ex- girlfriend in support of Dascoli were weak and insubstantial, as well as not credible given the fact the defendant had the opportunity to advise Kelly of first aggressor evidence failed to do so. Additionally, in reference to an affidavit written by a medical expert, Fahey states that his conclusion was “without sufficient factual basis, and is, at best, conjecture and
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
Lester, etal V Percadani, etal. United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Retrieve October 31, 200 http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/conner/01v1182a.pdf
Consequently, Richard and Mildred’s case was heard in a City Court of Virginia, where they both plead guilty because a city lawyer representing their case
"Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .
Washington Law Review, Vol. 86, Issue 4 (December 2011), pp. 841-874 Barnum, Jeffrey C. 86 Wash. L. Rev. 841 (2011)
Wagner, F. D. (2010). McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.. Supreme Court of the United States, 1, 1-214. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Vbansal. “The Effects of Dred Scott V. Sanford.” Associated Content. 06 August 2007. 26 May 2010.
Melvin, Justice. "In The Supreme Court Of British Columbia." Issues In Law & Medicine 9.3 (1993): 309. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
BOWERS V. HARDWICK, 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
Et Al. United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit. N.d. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 10 May 2014.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.