Skip to main content
Edward C. Hopkins Jr.
Avvo
Pro

Edward Hopkins’s Legal Cases

4 total

  • Lawson v. Stow, 2014 COA 26

    Practice Area:
    Libel & Slander
    Date:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Outcome:
    Reversed Trial Court in Part and Affirmed in Part
    Description:
    The Colorado Court of Appeals, affirming a Jefferson County trial court in part and reversing it in part, held that someone who makes a false report to a law enforcement agency or child protective services agency cannot be held liable by the person the false report was made against using a negligence per se theory. The Court also held that prefatory statements such as "I felt" do not convert provably false and derogatory statements of fact into constitutionally protected opinions. The trial court was ordered to review the trial evidence record to determine if one of the plaintiffs proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded evidence that the plaintiff did not threaten to kill him when the plaintiff posted the following statement on Facebook for all the plaintiff's Facebook friends to see: "Re-post this if there is someone that is still alive because you don’t want to go to prison."
  • Fry v. Lee, 2013 COA 100

    Practice Area:
    Libel & Slander
    Date:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Outcome:
    Affirmed Trial Court, Petition of Writ Filed with Colorado Supreme Court
    Description:
    The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed a Denver County trial court's legal ruling on a motion to dismiss that no reasonable, average lay readers can define the word 'plagiarism' as an act that necessarily entails someone intended to deceive. It also affirmed the trial court's legal ruling that no reasonable, average lay reader could interpret the phrase "caught up in plagiarism charge" to mean the subject of the phrase was accused of a crime involving an act of plagiarism. We filed a petition for writ with the Colorado Supreme Court. We argued the Court of Appeals erred when it (1) refused to consider definitions from Black's Law Dictionary, (2) relied on hearsay and linguistics evidence outside the pleadings that the appellees' submitted, (3) ruled that no reasonable Colorado jurors could find the appellees published provably false and defamatory statements about the appellant when they accused the appellant of committing an act of 'plagiarism' and alleged the appellant was "caught up in plagiarism charge," and (4) refused to consider relevant linguistics evidence that the appellant discovered and submitted to the Court of Appeals during the appellate litigation that contradicted the Court of Appeals' linguistics and legal findings. The Colorado Supreme Court denied the petition for writ.
  • Olive v. Schnurr, Douglas County District Court Case 12CV1892

    Practice Area:
    Libel & Slander
    Date:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Outcome:
    $180,000 Plaintiffs' Jury Trial Verdict
    Description:
    A seven-member Douglas County jury found that the defendant defamed the plaintiffs when she, without having a duty to do so, gave two news media companies false and derogatory, video-recorded statements that she saw the plaintiffs feeding their daughter margarita at a restaurant in a Denver Metro area mall. The news media used portions of the defendant's video-recorded statements in broadcasts that reached hundreds of thousands of viewers and were later made available to the public via the Internet.
  • Canfora v. Schaffer, 13CA0415 (Opinion Not Published)

    Practice Area:
    Libel & Slander
    Date:
    Feb 06, 2014
    Outcome:
    Reversed Trial Court
    Description:
    The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed a Jefferson County trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss that defamatory statements the defendant published at a public meeting were absolutely privileged. The Court of Appeals found that there was insufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that the defendant's defamatory statements were published during quasi-judicial proceedings. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's legal ruling that the statements were subject to the absolute privilege for statements made during such proceedings.