Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ortberg v. Goldman Sachs Group

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided April 11, 2013No. Nos. 11-CV-125, 11-CV-440Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcLEESE, Associate Judge

The court reverses a preliminary injunction that substantially restricts the ability of appellants Adam Ortberg and Michael Weber to conduct animal-rights protests near the offices of appellee Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Goldman) and the homes of current or former Goldman employees, specifically including appellee Michael Paese. In reversing, the court concludes that Goldman and Mr. Paese failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that the conduct of Mr. Ortberg and Mr. Weber during prior protests constituted either the tort of private nuisance or the…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Frisby v. SchultzSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
  4. Carey v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API