Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdamagesattorneyinjunction

damagesattorneyinjunctiontrial

Related Cases

Kinney v. Barnes, 443 S.W.3d 87, 164 Lab.Cas. P 61,514, 39 IER Cases 53, 57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1428

Facts

Robert Kinney worked as a legal recruiter for BCG Attorney Search, Inc. until 2004, when he left to start a competing firm. In 2010, BCG's President, Andrew Barnes, posted statements on various websites alleging that Kinney had engaged in a kickback scheme while employed at BCG. Kinney subsequently filed a defamation lawsuit against Barnes and BCG, seeking only a permanent injunction to remove the statements and prevent future similar statements, without seeking damages.

BCG Attorney Search, Inc. employed Robert Kinney as a legal recruiter until 2004, when he left and started a competing firm. Several years later, BCG's President, Andrew Barnes, posted a statement on the websites JDJournal.com and Employmentcrossing.com implicating Kinney in a kickback scheme during his time with BCG.

Issue

Is a permanent injunction against future speech that is similar to statements adjudicated as defamatory a constitutionally permissible remedy under the Texas Constitution?

The issue at hand is more specifically presented as whether a permanent injunction is an unconstitutional prior restraint where the injunction (1) requires the removal or deletion of speech that has been adjudicated defamatory, and (2) prohibits future speech that is the same or similar to the speech that has been adjudicated defamatory.

Rule

Permanent injunctions that prohibit future speech based on prior adjudicated defamatory statements constitute a prior restraint on speech and are not permitted under the Texas Constitution.

A hallmark of the right to free speech under both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions is the maxim that prior restraints are a heavily disfavored infringement of that right.

Analysis

The court analyzed the distinction between requiring the removal of past defamatory statements and prohibiting future similar statements. It concluded that while the former does not constitute a prior restraint, the latter does, as it risks chilling constitutionally protected speech. The court emphasized that prior restraints are heavily disfavored and that the appropriate remedy for defamation is damages, not injunctive relief.

We have squarely held that a temporary injunction prohibiting allegedly defamatory speech is an unconstitutional prior restraint, but we have not specifically addressed the propriety of a post-adjudication permanent injunction in a defamation case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case, holding that a permanent injunction against future speech based on prior adjudicated defamatory statements is unconstitutional.

Accordingly, we hold that an injunction against future speech based on an adjudication that the same or similar statements have been adjudicated defamatory is a prior restraint.

Who won?

Robert Kinney prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court of Texas ruled in his favor regarding the unconstitutionality of the injunction against future speech.

Kinney did not seek damages in his petition, requesting only a permanent injunction following a trial on the merits.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner, 59 N.Y.2d 314, 451 N.E.2d 459, 464 N.Y.S.2d 712, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3454

Thalman v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 290 N.J.Super. 676, 676 A.2d 611, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,651

Gierlinger v. Gleason, 160 F.3d 858, 78 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 988, 75 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,762, 50 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 484

Manila School Dist. No. 15 v. Wagner, 357 Ark. 20, 159 S.W.3d 285, 197 Ed. Law Rep. 437

Musman v. Modern Deb, Inc., 50 A.D.2d 761, 377 N.Y.S.2d 17