Law VERDICT: Jury awards Gibson’s Bakery $11 million against Oberlin College - Your hate hoax isn't "just starting a conversation"

Far Queue

kiwifarms.net
So Oberlin got their stay of execution; the flip side is they have to post a $36 million bond to cover it!
As of 2013 they have an endowment of over $700 million and I'd heard numbers as high as $900 million thrown around during the lawsuit and reporting on it. They can pony up the money easily.

That's the really insidious thing about these woke idiots. They're going broke with someone else's money.
 

heyitsmike

The beatings will continue until morale improves.
kiwifarms.net

HiddenFist

Things will change with time. Only in summertime.
kiwifarms.net
Gibson's Bakery is raising the stakes.

'So y'all wanna appeal, eh? Very well. We're gonna seek reinstatement of the original full amount. Do y'all really want to have to pay that extra $19 million that the judge reduced?'

I actually hope they get more than that.
 

heyitsmike

The beatings will continue until morale improves.
kiwifarms.net
Looks like Oberlin wants to keep on digging. These clowns just do not know when to stop.
 

HiddenFist

Things will change with time. Only in summertime.
kiwifarms.net
Looks like Oberlin wants to keep on digging. These clowns just do not know when to stop.
Let them dig their hole even deeper, it's gonna worse for them. I swear many of thesecolleges need to clean house and straighten up.
 
Out of curiosity, what would happen to the case if the older Gibsons died before the appeals ran out?
You live on as a legal entity after your death (if you have assets or any kind of estate). So in the case of this lawsuit the executor of the estate (probably the children) would fight for his rights as part of that estate.

There is some cool reading about civil death and extinguishing someone's legal existence before their actual death if you're interested. It also throws some light on the legal process after an actual death, and ties in with the historical practice of a women ceasing to exist as a legal entity after marriage (no longer strictly true, but there are vestiges of it everywhere in the law).
 

teriyakiburns

Your world frightens and confuses me.
kiwifarms.net
Oberlin denied new trial.

“the Court finds that the amount awarded is not manifestly excessive nor does it appear to be influenced by passion or prejudice”

http://interactive.tegna-media.com/video/embed/embed.html?id=2421497&type=video&title=Store%20shoplifting%20incident%20sparks%20protests&site=95&playerid=6918249996581&dfpid=32805352&dfpposition=Video_prestream_external%C2%A7ion=home



In the Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College case, the judgment for the plaintiffs amounted to almost $32 million in damages and defendants were required to post a $36 million bond to secure the judgment pending appeal.

Before appealind, Oberlin College filed two post-trial motions, a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict (pdf.) and Motion for a New Trial (pdf.), as explained in our post, Oberlin College Seeks New Trial in Gibson’s Bakery Case.
Gibson’s Bakery responded with an Opposition to the Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict (pdf.), and Opposition to the Motion for a New Trial (pdf.), as explained in our post, Gibson’s Bakery: Oberlin College’s request for a new trial is “baseless”.
Judge John Miraldi has ruled, denying both motions. The Order Denying Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (pdf.) and Order Denying Motion for New Trial (pdf.) are embedded at the bottom of the post.
In the JNOV Order, the Court ruled in pertinent part:
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict is only appropriate where, when the evidence is construed most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonable minds can come to one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the non-moving party. See McMichael v. Akron General Medical Center, 2017-Ohio-7594, ,r 1 O (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist.); see a/so Goodrich, at ¶ 11.
The Court has reviewed and considered the parties’ respective briefs and applicable precedent and, after construing the evidence most strongly in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court does not find that the Defendants are entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is denied.
In the New Trial Order, the Court ruled in pertinent part:
Ohio Civ. R. 59(A) empowers a trial court to grant a new trial when a party has been awarded “[e]xcessive or inadequate damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice”. Tesar Indus. Contractors, Inc. v. Republic Steel, 2018-Ohio-2089, ¶¶ 31 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist.) (internal citations omitted).
Having considered the parties respective briefs and arguments and applicable precedent, the Court finds that the amount awarded is not manifestly excessive nor does it appear to be influenced by passion or prejudice. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial or Remittitur is denied.
In neither Order did the Court address what I found to be the only “interesting” issue, the jury verdict form on compensatory damages that found no “actual malice,” yet the jury considered bad intent as part of punitive damages. Apparently the Court did not find it sufficiently interesting to address separately. Perhaps it’s not actually an interesting or effective argument by defendants, since they sought a bifurcated compensatory/punitive damages trial which precluded plaintiffs from presenting evidence relevant to punitive damages during the compensatory phase. In this bifurcated setting, to hold that a ruling as to actual malice during the compensatory phase could preclude consideration of the issue for punitive damages would be circular and allow defendants to defeat punitive damages as to defamation without plaintiffs having been able to present evidence on the issue.
There was a third court ruling, denying plaintiffs’ request for prejudgment interest. Prejudgment interest is available in Ohio upon a showing of bad faith in the litigation. The Court’s Order Denying Prejudgment Interest (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post) held in pertinent part:
This case has been pending since November of 2017, and the Court has been highly involved in nearly every phase of the litigation, including presiding over several in-person pretrials, a lengthy final pretrial, and ultimately the six-week trial that concluded this case. Through this involvement, the Court frequently interacted with the parties’ respective counsel, and was thoroughly familiar with their positions and strategies as they evolved throughout the litigation. Ultimately, the parties were unable to reach a resolution. But, from the Court’s perspective, this was not a product of the Defendants’ bad faith, as contemplated by Ohio Revised Code § 1343.03, it was simply a case where the parties’ dispute of the issues and application of the law required a trial of those issues. The correspondence that makes up nearly all of the parties’ evidentiary materials is consistent with that finding and with the Court’s observation above. Accordingly, and as stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Prejudgment Interest is denied.
I have not had a chance to review the voluminous papers submitted as to settlement negotiations, and may follow up with a post about that later.
Now what? Appeal.

tl;dr they wanted to replay the trial instead of waiting for an appeal, because the jury were mean doodie heads who didn't decide the right way and the plaintiffs are racists and should die already. Now an appeal is their only option.
 

Capsaicin Addict

Just a fellow who loves spicy food.
kiwifarms.net
Oberlin denied new trial.

“the Court finds that the amount awarded is not manifestly excessive nor does it appear to be influenced by passion or prejudice”

http://interactive.tegna-media.com/video/embed/embed.html?id=2421497&type=video&title=Store%20shoplifting%20incident%20sparks%20protests&site=95&playerid=6918249996581&dfpid=32805352&dfpposition=Video_prestream_external%C2%A7ion=home



In the Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College case, the judgment for the plaintiffs amounted to almost $32 million in damages and defendants were required to post a $36 million bond to secure the judgment pending appeal.

Before appealind, Oberlin College filed two post-trial motions, a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict (pdf.) and Motion for a New Trial (pdf.), as explained in our post, Oberlin College Seeks New Trial in Gibson’s Bakery Case.
Gibson’s Bakery responded with an Opposition to the Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict (pdf.), and Opposition to the Motion for a New Trial (pdf.), as explained in our post, Gibson’s Bakery: Oberlin College’s request for a new trial is “baseless”.
Judge John Miraldi has ruled, denying both motions. The Order Denying Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (pdf.) and Order Denying Motion for New Trial (pdf.) are embedded at the bottom of the post.
In the JNOV Order, the Court ruled in pertinent part:

In the New Trial Order, the Court ruled in pertinent part:

In neither Order did the Court address what I found to be the only “interesting” issue, the jury verdict form on compensatory damages that found no “actual malice,” yet the jury considered bad intent as part of punitive damages. Apparently the Court did not find it sufficiently interesting to address separately. Perhaps it’s not actually an interesting or effective argument by defendants, since they sought a bifurcated compensatory/punitive damages trial which precluded plaintiffs from presenting evidence relevant to punitive damages during the compensatory phase. In this bifurcated setting, to hold that a ruling as to actual malice during the compensatory phase could preclude consideration of the issue for punitive damages would be circular and allow defendants to defeat punitive damages as to defamation without plaintiffs having been able to present evidence on the issue.
There was a third court ruling, denying plaintiffs’ request for prejudgment interest. Prejudgment interest is available in Ohio upon a showing of bad faith in the litigation. The Court’s Order Denying Prejudgment Interest (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post) held in pertinent part:

I have not had a chance to review the voluminous papers submitted as to settlement negotiations, and may follow up with a post about that later.
Now what? Appeal.

tl;dr they wanted to replay the trial instead of waiting for an appeal, because the jury were mean doodie heads who didn't decide the right way and the plaintiffs are racists and should die already. Now an appeal is their only option.
Yeah, their whole argument boils down to, 'Even if everything happened the way the Gibsons said it did, no sane person could believe we're at fault!'.

At this point their only hope is an appeal, but the verdict seems pretty airtight. They'd be better off just paying and shutting up, but you know how SJWs are...
 

Matthew216

kiwifarms.net
Yeah, their whole argument boils down to, 'Even if everything happened the way the Gibsons said it did, no sane person could believe we're at fault!'.

At this point their only hope is an appeal, but the verdict seems pretty airtight. They'd be better off just paying and shutting up, but you know how SJWs are...
But to pay they may have to sell the 30 ft statue of Huey Newton they were building!
 
Last edited:
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino