The Dallas Observer, its parent company New Times Inc. and others have been targeted in a $1.1 billion suit by a plaintiff who alleges the alternative weekly wrongfully disclosed his HIV-positive status, referencing him by name in a published article last December.
In a motion for summary judgment filed on Aug. 20, three of the defendants seek the dismissal of the plaintiff’s petition, which several First Amendment lawyers say raises significant constitutional questions never before ruled on by a state judge in Texas.
The Dallas Observer, its parent company New Times Inc. and others have been targeted in a $1.1 billion suit by a plaintiff who alleges the alternative weekly wrongfully disclosed his HIV-positive status, referencing him by name in a published article last December.
In a motion for summary judgment filed on Aug. 20, three of the defendants seek the dismissal of the plaintiff’s petition, which several First Amendment lawyers say raises significant constitutional questions never before ruled on by a state judge in Texas.
The Dallas Observer, its parent company New Times Inc. and others have been targeted in a $1.1 billion suit by a plaintiff who alleges the alternative weekly wrongfully disclosed his HIV-positive status, referencing him by name in a published article last December.
In a motion for summary judgment filed on Aug. 20, three of the defendants seek the dismissal of the plaintiff’s petition, which several First Amendment lawyers say raises significant constitutional questions never before ruled on by a state judge in Texas.
Join the conversation!