Blogger Carl Nyberg filed a complaint against local school board president and lawyer Emanuel Welch with the state Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission, claiming that Welch violated conflict of interest rules by voting to hire his brother Bill Welch as a custodian at Proviso Township high schools without disclosing that he (Emanuel) had represented his brother in a criminal action for drug possession a few years earlier. Nyberg then wrote about his complaint and the drug charge on his blog, Proviso Probe.

In September 2005, the Welch brothers filed a lawsuit for defamation in Illinois state court. They voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice in December 2005.

In May 2007, the Save-A-Life Foundation sued three critics of Henry Heimlich and his famous first-aid procedure, the Heimlich maneuver. Among the defendants is Peter Heimlich, Henry's son, who maintains the website "Outmaneuvered." The other defendants are Robert Baratz, an official of the National Council Against Health Fraud, and Jason Haap, who runs the Cincinnati Beacon Web site.

The foundation's complaint included a claim for defamation and alleged that Peter Heimlich and his co-defendants had falsely accused the foundation of teaching improper first-aid techniques, misleading donors about the group's finances, and misstating the number of people the foundation had trained.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

Update:

4/8/08 - Haap and Baratz filed a Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint and to Dismiss.

06/26/08 - The court granted the Motion to Strike as to Save-A-Life's defamation claims (Counts II and III) but denied it as to the tortious interference claim (Count I). The court gave Save-A-Life leave to file amended Counts II and III.

07/10/08 - Save-A-Life filed amended Counts II and III.

08/08/08 - Haap and Baratz moved to strike the amended counts and to dismiss the action.

10/10/08 - The court granted the motion to strike amended Counts II and III as to defendant Haap but denied the motion as to defendant Baratz.

10/22/08 - The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

11/20/09 - Save-A-Life moved to remand the case back to state court.  Defendants opposed. 

02/03/09 - The court denied Save-A-Life's motion to remand.

07/07/09 - Sava-A-Life filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of the case.

07/09/09- The court granted the motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, to be converted to a dismissal with prejudice after 7/10/2010.

David Milum, upset with his lawyer Rafe Banks over the handling of a prior case, demanded that Banks pay back the $3,000 in fees he had received. When Banks refused, Milum posted entries on the Forsyth County Political Forum, a local political website he ran, in which he accused Banks of delivering bribes to judges on behalf of drug dealers.

According to court filings in the case, on May 10, 2004, Milum posted an entry titled "Polo Fields Residents Don’t Know About Attorney Rafe Banks?" In it, Milum stated:

Are you a drug dealer when you have an ounce of cocaine in your possession worth hundreds of dollars or when you carry $25,000.00 to a Superior Court judge . . . to keep a drug dealer out of jail? Are you a drug dealer when you have a gram of methamphetamine in your possession or is it when you arrange for a lifelong drug dealer to escape doing eighteen years in federal prison for attempted murder? Polo Fields resident Rafe Banks is both. For the proof of this, visit our . . . video. . . . A cocaine dealer names Rafe Banks as being involved in bribing judges here in Forsyth County and in Federal Court in Miami. . . . Rafe Banks will never make one single move against me or this website because he knows that we have the witnesses to prove that he carried these drug dealer payoffs to [a] judge . . . .

After a reader asked whether Milum was also criticizing all lawyers who represented drug dealers, Milum responded: "No. This does not include those attorneys who simply defend drug dealers. I am speaking of transporting substantial bribes, as did attorney Rafe Banks, to those crooked judges . . . to get drug dealers off . . . ."

On June 9, 2004, according to court filings Milum posted another comment on the site entitled "Cumming Attorney Rafe Banks, Drug Dealer Bribery Mule," in which he stated:

Rafe Banks, do you still take drug dealer bribes to Forsyth County judges? How long has it been since you delivered to a judge $25,000 in cash for the release of a drug dealer? I know that you carried this kind of cash to [a] late Forsyth County Superior Court judge. . . . I have witnesses to that fact. Which judge do you pay bribes to now Rafe, since [that judge] went to hell? Is it [another] Forsyth County judge?

Later, Milum posted a comment in which he taunted his former lawyer:

Rafe, don’t you wish you had given back my three thousand dollar retainer, when I asked you too [sic], because I found out you were helping them set me up? Rafe, do you also remember how I fired your ass, not once but twice before two different judges in Forsyth County courtrooms? That had to sting, didn’t it? How about now Rafe, are you still selling out your clients, as you did me? How much of that dirty drug money did it take for you to buy that big house in Polo Fields, Rafe? . . . I’ll ask again: can you hear those courthouse doors rattling now Rafe Banks Cumming Georgia attorney, who is a drug dealer bribery mule?

On June 16, 2004, Banks’ attorney sent Milum a letter demanding that he retract his statements.  After Milum declined to do so, Banks sued him in Forsyth County Superior Court for libel.

The case went to a jury trial in January 2006.  At the trial, Milum acknowledged that in his previous interrogatories he had named nine people with personal knowledge of the bribery allegations but testified that he was not stating facts when he posted his comments online, but simply giving his opinion.  None of the witnesses, however, testified that they personally knew anything about Banks bribing anyone.

After deliberating for two days, the jury found Milum liable for defamation and awarded Banks $50,000 in general damages, but no punitive damages.  Milum gave up operating the website shortly thereafter.

A Georgia appellate court affirmed the verdict, holding that Banks was properly characterized as a limited-purpose public figure, which meant that Banks had to show that Milum "published false and defamatory statements knowing that they were false or acting in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity."  According to the appellate court, the jury sought clarification  during deliberations as to whether a public figure can be libeled and the court reiterated the definition offered by Milum's attorneys, "that a 'public figure' is one who by reason of notoriety of his achievements or the vigor and success with which he seeks the public's attention has commanded or is in a position to command a substantial amount of public interest."

Update:

3/5/2007 - The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the jury award for $50,000

Larry Giles set up a website called "The Veranda Park News," which covered events in his residential community, aesthetic issues in the neighborhood, and commentary. Allegedly, his site included statements to the effect that the housing developer of his community, Veranda Partners, misspent homeowners' dues, changed landscaping to unfairly enrich itself, and partnered with the City of Orlando in order to gain an unlawful business advantage.

Veranda Partners sent Giles a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that he take down the site. Giles apparently complied with this demand, but Veranda Partners sued him anyway, claiming that the statements on his site were defamatory. Giles's Answer raised numerous defenses, including that his statements were substantially true, his statements were covered by the fair comment privilege, and Veranda Partners' lawsuit was a SLAPP.  Giles also filed a counterclaim for violation of Florida's anti-SLAPP statute (Fla. Stat. § 720.304 (4)) and abuse of process.

Updates:

4/5/2007 - Giles filed a motion for abatement of the action.

4/23/2007 - Veranda Partners filed a motion to dismiss Giles's counterclaims, and Giles filed a motion to disqualify Veranda Partners' attorneys.

4/25/2007 - Giles filed a motion for a protective order relating to discovery matters.

5/15/2007 - The court denied Giles's motion to disqualify Veranda Partners' attorneys.

5/16/2007 - Giles filed a motion for sanctions.

8/21/2007 - Giles filed a motion for summary judgment.

4/18/2008 - Giles filed answer to the Amended Complaint.

5/27/2008 - Court granted Giles's motion to file an amended counterclaim .

6/16/2008 -  Verdanda Partners missed the deadline for filing an answer to the amended counterclaim.

8/15/2008 - Giles filed his second renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment.

9/5/2008 -  Veranda Partners filed a motion for final default judgment.

9/11/2008 - Court granted Giles's renewed motion for summary judgment and entered a final default judgment against Veranda Partners on Giles's amended counterclaim.  The court awarded Giles $180,407,69 in treble damages under Florida's anti-SLAPP law, Fla. Stat. § 720.304 (4). 

Frank Vance wrote about Ligonier Ministries and its president, Timothy Dick, on his blog, Contending for the Truth. Statements on Vance's blog allegedly called into question Mr. Dick's ethics and qualifications for his position at Ligonier Ministries.

In August 2006, the Ministries and Mr. Dick sued Vance for defamation in Florida state court. The plaintiffs moved ex parte for a temporary injunction barring Vance from "publishing any false statements about them in written, verbal, or electronic form." The court apparently did not issue the injuction. Unable to find Vance in order to properly serve him, the plaintiffs voluntarily dropped their suit on September 27, 2006.

Former city manager of Venice, Florida, George Hunt, sued VeniceFlorida.com writer John Patten and local resident Sylvia Parrish for defamation.

Hunt had left his post in January 2004 after environmental violations by the city utilities department surfaced. Hunt claims in his lawsuit that Patten and Parrish conspired to spread lies about him to get him fired and keep him from finding another job. Specifically, Hunt claims that Patten and Parish contacted his current and potential employers and told them that he was about to be arrested for violating federal environmental laws while working as Venice city manager. He maintains that Patten and Parrish made these statements in emails and phone calls. Patten had been a longtime critic of Hunt in his writing for veniceflorida.com.

Hunt sued Patten and Parrish in Florida state court in March 2006. In March 2007, the court ordered Patten to pay approximately $2500 in attorney's fees for failing to provide documents to Hunt's attorney in a timely fashion. Patten subsequently replaced his lawyer. In July 2007, the court dismissed Patten's motion for a more definite statement, and Patten and Parrish filed their answers.

As of April 18, 2008 the case remains pending. 

James Boyne created a website about Daniel Choy, a doctor against whom his wife had won a malpractice suit. Choy initially sued for defamation in New York state court. That case was dismissed in April 2006. Choy then sued in Connecticut state court in August 2006. Boyne moved to strike the complaint and the court granted the motion. Choy amended his complaint, and Boyne answered in March 2007.

Update:

4/28/2008 - Choy withdrew the lawsuit.

While a student at the University of Northern Colorado, Thomas Mink created a website called the "Howling Pig," which dealt with issues of current interest at the University. Among other things, the website parodied the views of a professor at the University. The professor complained to the local police department, and they commenced an investigation of Mink for violation of Colorado's criminal libel statute.

Colorado law makes it "criminal libel" to knowingly publish any statement tending to "impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule." Colo.Rev.Stat. Sec. 18-13-105.

In December 2003, the Colorado police obtained a search warrant, searched Mink's house, and seized his computer and written materials.

In January 2004, Mink sued various government officials in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, challenging the criminal libel statute as a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court granted Mink a temporary restraining order prohibiting his prosecution under the criminal libel statute and requiring the district attorney to return Mink's computer and all of its contents.

Later, the district court dismissed Mink's suit when the district attorney's office disavowed an intent to prosecute. Mink appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the constitutional challenge on standing and mootness grounds.

Update:

9/10/2009 - Mink petitioned for a rehearing en banc (in front of the entire Tenth Circuit) which was denied.  The State then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.  The Supreme Court declined and sent the remaining claims back to the district court.  The district court dismissed the remaining claims.  Mink is now appealing to the Tenth Circuit.

7/19/2010 - Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that "Because a reasonable person would not take the statements in the editorial column as statements of facts by or about Professor Peake, no reasonable prosecutor could believe it was probable that publishing such statements constituted a crime warranting search and seizure of Mr. Mink's property." 

Jeff Wald sued Luke Ford and anonymous defendants, claiming that Ford posted (and allowed anonymous users to post) defamatory statements about him on lukeford.net. Wald alleged that various statements and innuendo on the site caused readers to believe that he is deceptive, immoral, dishonest, and a criminal.

Ford defaulted, then moved to set aside entry of default judgment. The case settled.

Laurie Holmes, widow of porn actor John Holmes, sued Luke Ford, operator of a porn industry blog, for posting a statement on his website indicating that she had "turned tricks" on the set of some of her husband's movies.

On October 31, 2000, the California Superior Court granted summary judgment for Ford.