Gleason v. Smolinski

Summary

The dissent would affirm the judgment for the plaintiff, concluding that the defendants’ targeted posters, accusations, and related conduct were private harassment rather than protected speech on a matter of public concern. It reasons that the reviewing court was required to defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings absent clear error, and that any constitutional error would in any event be harmless because independent harassing conduct supported liability. The dissent also would apply common-law defamation principles to the private accusations and uphold the punitive damages award.