According to the Institute for Justice (also reported in this Dallas Observer blog (Robert Wilonsky):
A Dallas judge yesterday ordered that nationally renowned law professor Richard Epstein be dismissed from a defamation lawsuit brought by Dallas developer H. Walker Royall. In that lawsuit, Royall claimed that Epstein defamed him merely by writing a blurb on the back cover of Bulldozed: “Kelo,” Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land. Carla Main, the author of Bulldozed, and Encounter Books, the book’s publisher, remain targets of Royall’s lawsuit.
Bulldozed tells the story of eminent domain abuse in Freeport, Texas, and ties that story to the larger issue of eminent domain abuse in America after the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London. Royall was a key player in the Freeport debacle, having signed an agreement with the city of Freeport whereby the city would take land owned by a local seafood business through eminent domain and transfer it to Royall’s company for a luxury marina development project. During that dispute, Royall sued the targets of the takings, the Gore family, over statements they made about Royall on a website opposing the taking. When Carla Main wrote a book about eminent domain abuse in Freeport, Royall sued her, too, along with her publisher. When Epstein contributed a blurb to the back cover, Royall sued him. Royall also sued a local newspaper that ran a review of Bulldozed and the writer who wrote the review.
Epstein is now out of the lawsuit. Dallas Judge Carlos Cortez ordered Epstein’s dismissal after Royall failed to show that the Texas court had jurisdiction over the Illinois resident, who has not been to Texas in more than 13 years.
Epstein is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and New York University School of Law. Ironically, he is the author of a prominent book on eminent domain, as well as a torts casebook that is used in law schools across the United States.... [A]lthough Epstein has now been dismissed, Main and Encounter remain as defendants....
Related Posts (on one page):
- Prof. Richard Epstein Dismissed from Book-Blurb Libel Case, on Jurisdictional Grounds:
- Journalist Carla Main Responds to Developer Who is Suing Her Claiming that She Defamed Him in Book Chronicling His Effort to Acquire Property Through Eminent Domain:
- Texas Developer Who Used Eminent Domain to Acquire Property for Himself Sues Journalist Carla Main and lawprof Richard Epstein for Libel:
The reason he has the blurb is because he's a relevant expert. No irony there...
Please don't encourage that.
(by which I mean, Bama 1L posted it before I did).
Professor Epstein gave barbri lectures? Are you sure you've got the right Epstein?
Different Epstein. (David Epstein of SMU is the BarBri prof; Richard Epstein of U.Chicago is the well-known law and econ scholar who wrote the above book blurb.)
Haha. Which says more about the law than it does about Epstein... :P
Beyond this, it would seem that someone like Royall, who appears to be able and willing to sue anyone he feels like suing - for any reason or for no reason at all - has managed to effectively convert a legal regime putatively establishing/interposing constitutional protections to speech within the ambit of public policy commentary into the English rule(s) regarding libel. To be certain, Royall hasn't managed to formally accomplish the burden-shifting inversion, but does it really matter where there are no effective obstacles to Royall's ability to punish people for disagreeing with him. Thus, by his ability to impose legal costs on persons less well-suited (and/or disposed) to being defendants in a lawsuit, Royall seems to have upped the ante on purely political speech in ways which may only be regarded as nothing short of perverse.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.