T1B

Good luck to the Ducketts. Someone needs to take this evil bitch (and the moronic anti-American tool she works for) down.



Lawsuit against Nancy Grace, CNN moves ahead


OCALA, Fla. - A federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit that claims CNN's Nancy Grace pushed the mother of a missing toddler to suicide through aggressive questioning.

CNN and Grace argued the wrongful death lawsuit brought by Melinda Duckett's family would "severely chill" journalists' coverage of missing-persons cases. But U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges on Thursday denied their motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Duckett, 21, was on Grace's show after her son Trenton went missing from her apartment in August 2006. Grace grilled the woman, accusing her of hiding something because Duckett did not take a lie-detector test and answered vaguely regarding her whereabouts.

Duckett fatally shot herself before the network aired the pre-taped interview.

The family claims Grace's intense questioning caused severe emotional distress that led to the suicide. The lawsuit also claims that the decision to air the interview after her suicide caused the family to suffer severe emotional distress and media and public harassment. They are seeking a jury trial, unspecified damages more than $15,000 and punitive damages.

Duckett family attorney Jay Paul Deratany said attorneys will begin taking testimony.

"There is more information out there to be gleaned," said Deratany. "If Melinda had any information, Nancy Grace stopped the investigation in its track."

Police have said Duckett is the only suspect in her son's disappearance.

A message left Friday for an attorney representing Grace and CNN were not immediately returned.

CNN is a division of Time Warner Inc.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_ ... issing_boy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"unspecified damages more than $15,000"? Did she bleed all over a Camry? Bitch's life wasn't worth that much.

The Big Pickle wrote:
Off this shite troll!

Where would we get our totally interesting news C&Ps?

Goober McTuber wrote:"unspecified damages more than $15,000"? Did she bleed all over a Camry? Bitch's life wasn't worth that much.

Probably not. But it's Nancy Grace.

I'm hoping for 500 Mil in punative damages just because she's such an evil cunt.

Knock this shit off...

Mikey wrote:

The Big Pickle wrote:
Off this shite troll!

This post was made by The Big Pickle who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post

BTW, Rudy-Please die soon.

TIA

Diogenes wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:"unspecified damages more than $15,000"? Did she bleed all over a Camry? Bitch's life wasn't worth that much.

Probably not. But it's Nancy Grace.

I'm hoping for 500 Mil in punative damages just because she's such an evil cunt.

No Nancy Grace fan here, either, but don't hold your breath.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that punitive damages must bear some reasonable relationship to actual damages in order to pass Constitutional muster. They've stopped short, at least thus far, of a bright line rule, but have hinted that a ratio of punitive damages to actual damages that exceeds single digits is unconstitutional.

Nancy Grace could settle this one by writing a check out of her personal account.

Nancy Grace could settle this one by writing a check out of her personal account.

I laughed..
Notre Dame Law?

Where is Kirk, 88 or JSC on this one...

before the network aired the pre-taped interview.

How the hell can it be pre-taped. They didn't tape it before they taped it. Either it was taped or live but not pre-taped.

Sincerely,

Indy


:D

It's like the old adage says...

Y2K wrote:

Nancy Grace could settle this one by writing a check out of her personal account.

I laughed..
Notre Dame Law?

Where is Kirk, 88 or JSC on this one...

Notice I said that she could settle this one out of her personal account, not necessarily that she would.

I honestly don't know enough details about the case to comment on its merits. But the Plaintiffs did manage to survive a dismissal motion, which means in all likelihood that they'd at least get the case in front of a jury if it doesn't settle.

Regardless of the legal merits, it seems to me that it might be a good idea for Nancy Grace to settle, unless she's thrilled about the idea of the rest of the talking heads putting her show under the microscope each day when the trial comes up. You know, sort of like the Bill Clinton/Paula Jones case -- a weak case on the merits, but with the potential to be really embarassing if it stays around.

Sure, she's a nasty--really nasty--bitch. But....uh,...wasn't she right? How come we don't hear the family proclaiming innocence?

R-Jack wrote:Anyone who appears on Nancy Grace's show should blow their fucking brains out anyway.

To be sure, anyone who would voluntarily appear on that show is too dumb to live.

My father died of ALS. My grandmother died in a hospital at the age of 102. I'm sure that in Nancy Grace's world, both deaths are murders that have yet to be investigated.

Cause that's how she rolls.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Diogenes wrote: an evil cunt.

Best description I've heard yet for NG.

She makes my skin crawl.

Thank You.

As far as could she or would she win this case...

The bitch should settle. If she gets one juror on her panel who loathes her as much as I ( or any sane person familiar with her 'work') she's doomed.

And as far as capping punative damages, these plaintiffs seem to be out for retribution, not cash.
A legally binding promise to give all (extra legal) proceeds to charity would make that moot.

Diogenes wrote:And as far as capping punative damages, these plaintiffs seem to be out for retribution, not cash.
A legally binding promise to give all (extra legal) proceeds to charity would make that moot.

The recent line of Supreme Court decisions that have sorta kinda capped punitive damages have Constitutional underpinnings. They're not capping punitive damages because the Plaintiffs would receive a windfall otherwise. They're capping punitive damages because failing to do so violates the due process rights of Defendants. So the argument that the punitive damages would be given to charity is not relevant.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Diogenes wrote:And as far as capping punative damages, these plaintiffs seem to be out for retribution, not cash.
A legally binding promise to give all (extra legal) proceeds to charity would make that moot.

The recent line of Supreme Court decisions that have sorta kinda capped punitive damages have Constitutional underpinnings. They're not capping punitive damages because the Plaintiffs would receive a windfall otherwise. They're capping punitive damages because failing to do so violates the due process rights of Defendants. So the argument that the punitive damages would be given to charity is not relevant.

You sorta kinda have any references? The whole idea of punative is...

Punative. As we want to fuck you up because you're a real POS. Where the hell due process comes into play, i'm uncertain.

mvscal wrote:It's punitive, you fucking brainless tard. It was spelled correctly four fucking times in the quote you excerpted.

STFU, traitor.

I was trolling for Dimsdale. Thanks for ruining it.

I was trolling for Dimsdale. Thanks for ruining it.

No, you were slapping your forehead, trying to remember when there was any grey matter left under it.

Imus wrote:

I was trolling for Dimsdale. Thanks for ruining it.

No, you were slapping your forehead, trying to remember when there was any grey matter left under it.

STFU, bitch.

And for the record, you refering to anyone else as 'nappy headed' is kind of rich.

Diogenes wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Diogenes wrote:And as far as capping punative damages, these plaintiffs seem to be out for retribution, not cash.
A legally binding promise to give all (extra legal) proceeds to charity would make that moot.

The recent line of Supreme Court decisions that have sorta kinda capped punitive damages have Constitutional underpinnings. They're not capping punitive damages because the Plaintiffs would receive a windfall otherwise. They're capping punitive damages because failing to do so violates the due process rights of Defendants. So the argument that the punitive damages would be given to charity is not relevant.

You sorta kinda have any references?

What, is your google on the fritz? This'll get you started . . .

http://www.dechert.com/library/Mass%20Torts30_03-07.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1010392" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20080311.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2 ... dez-award/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/ ... 5-1256.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;