Mazur vs. Szporer

Interesting analysis of Mazur vs. Szporer:

http://www.welterlaw.com/assets/mazur.pdf

Summary:

IIB Defamation

IIB1a, p.4-5. Szporer’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Mazur is a public (both general purpose and limited) figure: denied.
IIB1b, p.5. Mazur’s claims for punitive damages: dismissed since “Mazur has failed to allege any facts supporting his merely conclusory assertion of actual malice”.
IIB1, p.5. Szporer’s motion to dismiss defamation per se claims based on statements made in the March 20, 2002 article: denied
IIB2, p.5. Szporer’s motion to dismiss defamation per se claims based on statements made in the April 3, 2002 article: granted

IIC False light invasion of privacy

IIC1, p.6. Mazur’s complaint has adequately pled the requisite malice.
IIC2, p.6. Mazur’s claims for false light: dismissed for failure to state a claim

IIC, p.6. Szporer’s motion to dismiss the claim for false light invasion of privacy: denied for the March 20, 2002 article; granted for the April 3, 2002 article

IID Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction

IID, p.7. Mazur’s request to compel Szporer to publish a statement in The Siec: denied

see also:
http://salonniezaleznych.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=380

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s