|
Judge Judd Carhart wrote for the Appeals Court wrote that a jury should determine whether a plaintiff has met the burden of demonstrating malice. "From the record before us, we conclude that the judge's determination that Scholz could not prove the element of malice was error; in our view, such a determination should be left to the fact finder," Carhart wrote. Scholz's attorney, Nick Carter, said Scholz "is pleased the Appeals Court has confirmed the statements attributed to Micki Delp in the Boston Herald are actionable and should be put before a jury." "He looks forward to that opportunity," Carter said. Jeffrey Robbins, the Herald's lawyer, said he believes the Appeals Court ruling will not have any impact on a judge's decision in March to throw out Scholz's lawsuit against the Herald. Micki Delp's lawyer, Michael Day, said he believes Judge Cratsley was correct in dismissing Scholz's claims against Delp. "Whether it is upon further appellate review, in the Superior Court or through the jury process, the claims will eventually be dismissed in their entirety," Day said.
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor