Nevada court hears casino mogul Adelson's defamation case

Recent Cases

Nevada's highest court is being asked if a political group defamed casino mogul Sheldon Adelson in 2012 with an Internet ad alleging that he used prostitution-tainted money from casinos in China to fund Republican presidential campaigns in the United States.

A key question during Nevada Supreme Court oral arguments on Monday was whether online point-and-click "hyperlinks" are comparable to footnotes on a printed page — and whether they were enough to inform ad readers that Adelson denied the prostitution claim when it was made in a civil lawsuit.

"This Web page wasn't designed to be fair," Daniel Polsenberg, an attorney for Adelson, told the five justices hearing the case. "It states that Mr. Adelson approved of prostitution. That's not enough."

Lee Levine, attorney for the National Jewish Democratic Council, said hyperlinks are familiar to most Internet users, and as convenient for readers as footnotes and endnotes in books and articles.

The justices also heard related arguments about whether Nevada's anti-SLAPP law protected the council when criticizing one of the world's wealthiest men. The statute aims to prevent so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation.

Adelson accuses the Washington-based council and two of its executives of "assassinating" his character by falsely claiming that he personally approved illegal activities in Macau resorts owned by Sands China Limited, a subsidiary of Las Vegas Sands.

Adelson, CEO of Las Vegas Sands, denied the claims when they were made public as part of a wrongful termination lawsuit filed in Nevada state court by former Sands China executive Steven Jacobs. That case is not yet resolved.

Related listings

  • California court mulls whether employers must offer seating

    California court mulls whether employers must offer seating

    Recent Cases 04/04/2016

    California's Supreme Court is set to clarify the state's rules for determining when employers must provide workers with a place to sit. The court's opinion, expected Monday, stems from lawsuits brought by cashiers at the CVS drugstore chain and telle...

  • Court upholds total population count in electoral districts

    Court upholds total population count in electoral districts

    Recent Cases 04/03/2016

    A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can count everyone, not just eligible voters, in deciding how to draw electoral districts.   The justices turned back a challenge from Texas voters that could have dramatically altered political...

  • Karadzic convicted of genocide, sentenced to 40 years

    Karadzic convicted of genocide, sentenced to 40 years

    Recent Cases 03/23/2016

    A U.N. court convicted former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic of genocide and nine other charges Thursday and sentenced him to 40 years in prison for orchestrating Serb atrocities throughout Bosnia's 1992-95 war that left 100,000 people dead. As...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

West Hartford, Connecticut Special Education Lawyer Forte Law Group focuses on special education law and empowering parents to advocate for their child’s rights. >> read