Reply to Oberlin College ordered to post $36 million bond to delay Gibson’s Bakery collection of Judgment

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Oberlin College ordered to post $36 million bond to delay Gibson’s Bakery collection of Judgment"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I still don't understand the tort here.

Did Oberlin administrators officially declare that the bakery is "racist"? Oberlin has zero control over what its adult students decide to protest (or not protest).

Oberlin cancelled its contract with the bakery. But that in itself does not constitute slander.

Someone please explain to me how Oberlin THE INSTITUTION is culpable?[/quote]

Wasn’t an Oberlin administrator organizing and leading some of the protests?   It wasn’t just students, as I recall. [/quote]

Yes. The Dean of Students. [/quote]

I think she was present to keep order, not as an organizer. If you say the college “organized” the student protest because of her presence, what’s to prevent imputing all student protests to their colleges or universities based on the flimsiest nexus?  Most college protests take place on the college campus; students could have their college names on protest signs (“Yale Students for Equality”). Now are colleges responsible? [/quote]

I believe that was her testimony, but her emails etc told a different tale.  It is the province of the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses.  The verdict (not the judgment) obviously let one draw the conclusion that her testimony on the subject was not entirely believable.   First there will be a motion for new trial.  On jury decisions this is relevant:
 "Under Civ.R. 59(A)(6), a trial court may grant a new trial when a judgment is not
supported by the weight of the evidence. In granting a new trial for this reason, a
trial court must weigh the evidence and pass upon the credibility of the witnesses,
“not in the substantially unlimited sense that such weight and credibility are
passed on originally by the jury but in the more restricted sense of whether it
appears to the trial court that manifest injustice has been done and that the verdict
is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Rohde, 23 Ohio St.2d 82, 262
N.E.2d 685, paragraph three of the syllabus. As stated above, the trial court may
not set aside the jury’s verdict under Civ.R. 59(A)(6) due to a “mere difference of
opinion.” Id. at 92. “[R]ather, the relief should be granted only when the trial
court is persuaded that there is insufficient credible evidence to sustain the verdict
in light of the other evidence presented.” Green v. Bailey, 1st Dist. No.
C-070221, 2008-Ohio-3569,"

Granting a new trial is rare.  Getting the order denying a new trial overturned on appeal by arguing the jury was wrong is even more rare.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics