The "Johnny Northside" anti-blogging-freedom case will be appealed.

The trial judge in Moore v. Hoff ruled against Hoff on post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict. Strib reports. Johnny Northside reports.

A professional journalist society intervened as an amicus on behalf of Hoff's free speech rights, and against the verdict. Such amicus presence can be expected on appeal. For those wanting to check the online docket, the case cause number is given in the sidebar, per my least-liked Minnesota case.

Strib reporting by Abby Simons indicates a multipage memorandum opinion was issued by the court, but Strib has not posted it with a link. I know of no other site posting the memorandum, which sets out the judge's rationale for her ruling. If any reader finds the item online, please email me at the address on the sidebar, or post a comment with link info.

Sheila Regan, Daily Planet, has posted about the case in the past, e.g., here. Ed Kohler, The Deets has posted in the past also, e.g., here. Neither of them as of noon today have items online, or I have missed them. Earlier Crabgrass on the subject, this Google.

______________UPDATE________________
Hat tip to Ed Kohler, sending this link to the judge's opinion.

That opinion is posted on the Minneapolis Mirror site, one that has been perpetually critical of Hoff and his blogging; this link for their accompanying commentary.

_____________FURTHER UPDATE______________
My opinion of the Judge's opinion - she entirely ducked the key question the Amicus filing so clearly brought into focus - can you be liable for an ancillary tort related to publishing true things? As in, "And the truth shall set you free."

Not always.

Judge Denise Reilly totally ducked the entire post-trial issue. No two ways about that.

She talked about sufficient evidence in the record for this and that, and such and so forth; but fell stone silent on the entire REAL issue of law that the case entails.

The Moore v. Hoff motion for judgment as a matter of law appears, from the online amicus filing, (which is the only online post-trial filing I have discovered), to have presented a rock-solid clear and essential First Amendment argument, casting the issue in undeniably bright and well reasoned daylight.

As an explanation, Reilly must be myopic. She failed to see it.

Judge R. clearly spent formative years within
the Duck-and-Cover  generation.

The other likely explanation, is Judicial Tap Dancing was a-play from the get-go; and That Stuff happens far, far too frequently - and should be called out each and every time as "unresponsive," (to say it delicately).

Take a look at this Crabgrass post, especially the links. The Borger amicus brief is online, here. You be the judge. Did Reilly frontally address the First Amendment and precedent contentions, or did she show less than the ability to unstring and gut such a convincing argument?