Carolinas Verdicts
Find out about the most important recent North and South Carolina cases, selected by VerdictSearch editors. Coverage includes Gaston, Mecklenburg and Wake counties in North Carolina and Charleston, Horry and Richland in South Carolina. Subscribe to VerdictSearch Carolinas for access to all Carolinas verdictsPricing OptionsAmount:
$105,000
Type:
Verdict-Plaintiff
State:
North Carolina
Venue:
Brunswick County
Case Type:
Libel/Slander – Defamation (Libel/Slander) – Defamation (Libel/Slander),
Case Name:
Ola Lewis v. Edward Rapp
Date:
January 1, 2013
Plaintiff(s):
Ola Lewis (Female)
Plaintiff Attorney(s):
Lonnie B. Williams;
;
Wilmington,
NC,
for
Ola Lewis
Defendant(s):
Edward Rapp
Defense Attorney(s):
H. Hugh Stevens;
;
Raleigh,
NC,
for
Edward Rapp
Insurer(s):
None
A Brunswick County jury awarded $105,000 to a Superior Court judge who alleged that she had been libeled by Internet postings. The defendant had argued that his postings were protected free speech. Plaintiff Ola Lewis, the Senior Resident Judge of Judicial District 13B, was up for reelection in 2012. While campaigning for herself, she openly supported William Rabon in his run for the North Carolina State Senate. Defendant Edward Rapp was a supporter of Rabon’s opponent and also volunteered to serve as the opponent’s Media Strategist. On April 9, 2010, Rapp posted a blog entry on Carolina Talk Network and on Facebook, which was entitled "Dirty Politics by the Good Ol Boys." The post not only criticized Rabon, but also stated that plaintiff’s endorsement violated the state’s judicial conduct code. Plaintiff’s attorney immediately contacted Rapp and advised him that he was mistaken. The attorney told Rapp that plaintiff, as a candidate for office, can openly endorse any other candidate seeking election. Rapp posted a second blog entry a couple of days later under the title of "Apologies, Corrections, Explanations and Amplifications on My Blogs," but continued to imply that plaintiff’s actions were unethical. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s publications were libelous per se and that the false accusations resulted in damage to her reputation as a judge. In addition to compensatory damages, plaintiff also sought punitive damages on the basis that Rapp acted with actual malice. The initial lawsuit was dismissed in 2010, when the trial judge determined that Rapp‘s posts were protected speech. However, plaintiff successfully appealed the court’s decision and the case was remanded for trial. Defendant contended that his postings were not about plaintiff specifically, but that he considered it unethical for any judge to endorse a politician. He argued that the postings should be considered protected free speech. Defendant further argued that plaintiff’s character was in question prior to the postings and that her reputation was not damaged as a result of the posts.Plaintiff was a married female who was a Superior Court Judge.
Libel and defamation of character, resulting in damage to plaintiff’s reputation as a judge.
$105,000
Judge:
F. Lane Williamson