Why do people spew stuff on the internet when they have zero knowledge or understanding of the topic? It's one of the great mysteries of the modern day. Let's dig into this example. What's the basis on which you posted your clearly erroneous, uninformed and 100% incorrect opinion? Did you hesitate for a second before hitting "save" on your post? Is it your personal arrogance that caused you to do that? Or a thought rolling around in your head that you're right even when speaking on things you have no knowledge of or experience in? Genuinely curious, cuz you're either too stupid to know when you don't know something, or you're arrogant enough to say something knowing you have no actual knowledge base from which to make the statement?
How about actually educating someone instead of running your ugly fucking mouth? I do agree that it is annoying in the day of the interwebs where people say shit that is completely wrong, but hell, sometimes people are literally taught the wrong information. Sure, we can also "google it," but nowadays, how in the fuck do we even know if Google is telling the truth. How the hell do we know if ANY search engine is telling the truth. We try to trust the ones who teach us, as real people seem to be more credible than the internet at times, so maybe the person you are replying to actually believes what they said because they were simply taught that. I am not saying this is the case, but I have been taught things that I later found out were completely wrong, even though I was taught the "wrong" thing by someone who claimed to be credible. When it comes to something like the court system, if you are not inside of it daily, it is honestly difficult for many to understand. If you are constantly in the court system throughout your daily life, chances are, you will find a lot of people who say things that just aren't true because you know how it actually works. Nonetheless, maybe try educating instead of writing a literal paragraph just running your mouth - I would love to know what you know, if you have something positive to add to the conversation.
Ok, point taken. From now on, i will endeavor to educate instead of running my ugly mouth. I had a moment of frustration that in the light of day I now see was petty.
There are two types of appeals. The most common is an appeal from a final judgment. A verdict is a final judgment. But, a ruling on a motion to dismiss can also be a final judgment - if it is granted. Granting a motion to dismiss gets rid of the case that was filed, but a plaintiff (the one filing suit) is almost always given at least one more bite at the apple to amend the complaint and try again. But denying a motion to dismiss does not get rid of the case; the case continues to move forward. The person who filed the motion to dismiss that got denied might like to appeal, but since it was not a final judgment, he or she cannot appeal unless both the trial judge and the appeals court agree to allow an appeal. This is the second type of appeal, called an "interlocutory" appeal.
Certain kinds of interlocutory rulings automatically provide a right of appeal, but they are few are far between and the rules differ from state to state. In my state, a ruling granting or denying a motion for preliminary injunction is subject to automatic interlocutory appeal. So is a ruling on a motion to change custody in a divorce case. An order granting a motion to appoint a receiver is also immediately appealable, but not an order denying such a motion. Same with a motion to substitute a new judge due to the current judge's bias: granting the motion is appealable, but denying the motion is not.
The federal courts have their own rules about when you can file an appeal before a final judgment is entered. Generally speaking, there are fewer situations in which you can file an interlocutory appeal; you must wait until final judgment is entered.
In PV's case, denying the NYT's motion to dismiss is not a final judgment, so NYT cannot appeal as a matter of right. They can ask the appeals court to allow them to appeal the decision, but such permission is only granted in exceptional cases. Since there's no automatic right of appeal, if NYT doesn't get permission to appeal, then PV gets to go through the next phase of the case, which is discovery. That's where they get to see the juicy internal emails of NYT employees discussing the story before they print it, because those emails are relevant to whether or not what NYT said was "malicious," meaning knowingly false or made with reckless indifference to the truth and with intent to cause harm to the subject of the statement.
you can apeal a verdict but you cannot appeal a dismissal
Why do people spew stuff on the internet when they have zero knowledge or understanding of the topic? It's one of the great mysteries of the modern day. Let's dig into this example. What's the basis on which you posted your clearly erroneous, uninformed and 100% incorrect opinion? Did you hesitate for a second before hitting "save" on your post? Is it your personal arrogance that caused you to do that? Or a thought rolling around in your head that you're right even when speaking on things you have no knowledge of or experience in? Genuinely curious, cuz you're either too stupid to know when you don't know something, or you're arrogant enough to say something knowing you have no actual knowledge base from which to make the statement?
How about actually educating someone instead of running your ugly fucking mouth? I do agree that it is annoying in the day of the interwebs where people say shit that is completely wrong, but hell, sometimes people are literally taught the wrong information. Sure, we can also "google it," but nowadays, how in the fuck do we even know if Google is telling the truth. How the hell do we know if ANY search engine is telling the truth. We try to trust the ones who teach us, as real people seem to be more credible than the internet at times, so maybe the person you are replying to actually believes what they said because they were simply taught that. I am not saying this is the case, but I have been taught things that I later found out were completely wrong, even though I was taught the "wrong" thing by someone who claimed to be credible. When it comes to something like the court system, if you are not inside of it daily, it is honestly difficult for many to understand. If you are constantly in the court system throughout your daily life, chances are, you will find a lot of people who say things that just aren't true because you know how it actually works. Nonetheless, maybe try educating instead of writing a literal paragraph just running your mouth - I would love to know what you know, if you have something positive to add to the conversation.
Ok, point taken. From now on, i will endeavor to educate instead of running my ugly mouth. I had a moment of frustration that in the light of day I now see was petty.
There are two types of appeals. The most common is an appeal from a final judgment. A verdict is a final judgment. But, a ruling on a motion to dismiss can also be a final judgment - if it is granted. Granting a motion to dismiss gets rid of the case that was filed, but a plaintiff (the one filing suit) is almost always given at least one more bite at the apple to amend the complaint and try again. But denying a motion to dismiss does not get rid of the case; the case continues to move forward. The person who filed the motion to dismiss that got denied might like to appeal, but since it was not a final judgment, he or she cannot appeal unless both the trial judge and the appeals court agree to allow an appeal. This is the second type of appeal, called an "interlocutory" appeal.
Certain kinds of interlocutory rulings automatically provide a right of appeal, but they are few are far between and the rules differ from state to state. In my state, a ruling granting or denying a motion for preliminary injunction is subject to automatic interlocutory appeal. So is a ruling on a motion to change custody in a divorce case. An order granting a motion to appoint a receiver is also immediately appealable, but not an order denying such a motion. Same with a motion to substitute a new judge due to the current judge's bias: granting the motion is appealable, but denying the motion is not.
The federal courts have their own rules about when you can file an appeal before a final judgment is entered. Generally speaking, there are fewer situations in which you can file an interlocutory appeal; you must wait until final judgment is entered.
In PV's case, denying the NYT's motion to dismiss is not a final judgment, so NYT cannot appeal as a matter of right. They can ask the appeals court to allow them to appeal the decision, but such permission is only granted in exceptional cases. Since there's no automatic right of appeal, if NYT doesn't get permission to appeal, then PV gets to go through the next phase of the case, which is discovery. That's where they get to see the juicy internal emails of NYT employees discussing the story before they print it, because those emails are relevant to whether or not what NYT said was "malicious," meaning knowingly false or made with reckless indifference to the truth and with intent to cause harm to the subject of the statement.