From the Archives: June 4 in the Pioneer
Jun. 4—June 4, 2015 — The annual Ride for the Troops event will celebrate a decade of honoring the military with its 10th ride. Starting and finishing at Marketplace Foods, participants will travel through Becida, Naytahwaush, Itasca State Park and Shevlin, including stops in Zerkel and at the Rock Creek Convenience Store.
June 4, 2000 — MeritCare Clinic in Bemidji officially broke ground Friday on a $7 million radiation therapy addition. Once completed, cancer patients will no longer need to leave Bemidji for radiation treatments. In addition to radiation therapy, the new center will also house same-day operating rooms.
June 4, 1975 — The area north of First Street in Nymore has been completely sewered, some 5,000 feet of line, as the Nymore water and sewer project continues. Officials estimate that work on the project, 29,000 feet of sewer line and 33,000 feet of water line, will be substantially completed by this fall.
June 4, 1925 — A crowd of over 200 people gathered at the new armory in Bemidji to hear Pussyfoot Johnson, one of the best-known anti-liquor speakers in the country, tell of his recent experiences in the Balkan states in Europe. Johnson said he believes the 18th Amendment in America is the forerunner of a dry world.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
More than 4,000 cyclists heading to Niagara, Hamilton for Ride to Conquer Cancer
Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation will be hosting its 18th annual The Ride to Conquer Cancer this weekend. This edition of 'Canada's largest athletic fundraiser' is presented by Johnson & Johnson and also partners with regional businesses such as Peller Estates wines and McMaster University. Hamilton and Niagara are expected to host more than 4,000 cyclists over the weekend. Participants include first-time riders, 18-year veterans of the fundraiser and cancer survivors (who ride with yellow flags). Funds raised go toward cancer research, helping fight a disease that will affect two in five Canadians during their lifetimes, according to a Princess Margaret press release. The ride has a variety of options for routes, and has one- or two-day riding options. The most popular route, The Classic, begins with two starting points, and is a 200-kilometre, two-day ride that ends at Peller Estates in Niagara-on-the-Lake. For The Classic, more than 400 riders will start from Peller Estates and end at McMaster in Hamilton. They will be joined by another 4,000-plus riders trekking from Toronto's Sherway Gardens. The start line for the Sherway Gardens group will be in the northeast parking lot on the corner of Queensway and Sherway Gardens Road. There will be free day parking on site. The Niagara group will begin at the main site of Peller Estates Winery at 290 John St. E. Both starting points of the race have an 8 a.m. opening ceremony before the ride begins at 8:30 a.m. Riders can begin checking in at 6:30 a.m. and must be present by 7:30 a.m. The two groups will camp overnight in McMaster's 10 Acre Field. Participants in the 17th annual Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation Ride to Conquer Cancer arrive in Niagara Falls. Cyclists head out again on Sunday, departing from McMaster at 7:30 a.m. Family and friends of riders can partake in events and festivities at Peller Estates from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., before being joined by the cyclists. The cycling route will close at 6 p.m. In Hamilton, McMaster's Lot H parking lot will be closed until June 10. Niagara-on-the-Lake will face a road closure on Sunday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Railroad Street and Concession 1 Road will be closed in both directions between East and West Line and Line 1 Road. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
Two Courts Uphold UPEPA Fee Awards After Voluntary Dismissals
The UPEPA is weathering appellate decisions just fine so far. The Uniform Public Express Protection Act (UPEPA) in just a few years has become the most ubiquitous body of Anti-SLAPP law in the world. Like most other Anti-SLAPP laws, the UPEPA provides for a special motion to cause the dismissal at an early stage of meritless litigation which infringes upon a person's free speech and related rights. If the defendant in such a case wins the special motion and the offending cause of action is dismissed, then the defendant who brought the special motion must be awarded their attorney fees, expenses and costs in relation to the special motion. This provides a powerful deterrent to such meritless litigation being brought against them in the first place. But what if, after the UPEPA special motion is brought, the plaintiff who brought the offending cause of action decides not to contest the special motion but instead just voluntarily dismisses it? In that instance, can the defendant who went to the trouble of preparing and filing the UPEPA special motion still be awarded attorney fees for their trouble? The answer to this question was recently answered by two courts in different states (New Jersey and Kentucky) on two consecutive days, and which reached the same conclusion. We'll examine the opinions of those courts now. These opinions are Satz v. Keset Starr, 2025 WL 1522032 ( May 29, 2025), and Johnson v. Kearney, 2025 WL 1536078 ( May 30, 2025). In the Satz case in New Jersey, the defendants circulated a flyer that advocated that the plaintiff get a religious divorce. The flyer contained an unfavorable photo of the plaintiff and suggested a protest outside of the home of the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff sued the defendants for a variety of things related to the flyer and asked for $30 million in damages. When the plaintiff moved for default judgment, the defendants responded to the motion with request that the case be dismissed under the UPEPA. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion and that same day the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint. The defendants then moved to reopen the case for the purpose of assessing fees, costs and expenses under the UPEPA. The trial court, however, refused to consider the defendants' request on the basis that there was no evidence that the plaintiff filed his action was either frivolous or intended to harass the defendants. The defendants appealed this ruling. Now turning to the Johnson case in Kentucky, where two candidates in the 2024 Republican primary for state attorney were squabbling over an endorsement by the local Fraternal Order of Police. Ultimately, one candidate sued the other, and the other candidate (the defendant) filed a UPEPA special motion to dismiss. Concluding that the plaintiff had not acted in bad faith, the trial judge encouraged the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the complaint with prejudice to refiling. The plaintiff did dismiss the complaint and the judge refused to award the defendant fees, costs and expenses because the case had been dismissed. The defendant appealed this ruling. The courts in both Satz and Johnson reached the same conclusion in the same way. Both courts determined that the outcome could be determined by interpreting the plain text of the UPEPA without the need to reference external sources. The statutory interpretation of the UPEPA in these cases was very straightforward: First, the UPEPA provides that a voluntary dismissal of a challenged cause of action does not affect the moving party's right to seek attorney fees, costs and expenses; Second, the UPEPA deems a party's voluntary dismissal of a challenged cause of action ― while a UPEPA special motion is pending ― to establish that the moving party prevailed on special motion; and Third, the UPEPA states that the award of such attorney fees, costs and expenses is mandatory where the moving party has prevailed on the special motion. Therefore, where a cause of action has been voluntarily dismissed while a UPEPA cause of action is pending, the moving party is entitled to a mandatory award of attorney fees, costs and expenses despite the voluntarily dismissal. This was the ultimate ruling of both courts, which reversed the trial court and remanded the cases for the calculation of the attorney fees, costs and expenses to be awarded to the respective moving parties in each case. The Satz opinion additionally noted that one reason for this outcome was to keep a party who brought an offending cause of action from simply dismissing the cause of action and then possibly re-asserting it later. This would defeat the purpose of the UPEPA to free the defendant from having to further litigate the cause of action. The Johnson opinion commented on the fact that "good faith" by the party who filed the cause of action is not any defense to the UPEPA's mandatory award of attorney fees, costs and expenses ― it doesn't matter at all why that party brought the cause of action, only that it infringes upon protect rights. ANALYSIS Both of these appellate courts arrived at the result desired by the UPEPA drafting committee when we were writing the Act: In the event of a voluntary dismissal after a special motion has been brought, the moving party will still be entitled to mandatory attorney fees, costs and expenses. There was considerable debate within the UPEPA drafting committee over this outcome, mostly due to something called the innocent violator. Basically, the drafting committee realized that the cases which infringe upon protected expression could be divided into two categories. The first category is the classic SLAPP case which is intended to harass, punish, or retaliate, etc., against the speaker for the purpose of making them shut up. Recall that the acronym SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The 'Strategic' part of this is that the action would intended ― specifically designed ― to cause harm to the speaker by forcing them to incur legal costs in defense. This wrongful intent characterizes this first category of cases infringing protected expression. The second category is exactly the opposite of the first: The second category is where the plaintiff who brought the cause of action had no intent to misuse the cause of action, but instead stumbled into an infringement of public expression because their counsel was lazy or careless, or the public expression issue was very technical and not easy to spot. This is the aforementioned innocent violator. The drafting committee recognized that an innocent violator should be treated differently than somebody who intentionally brought abusive litigation. But how should that treatment differ? There were suggestions that a warning letter should be sent before the special motion was brought, that the innocent violator should be allowed to dismiss or reframe the infringing cause of action without penalty, or that attorney fees should not be assessed against an innocent violator. In their opinions, the Satz and Johnson courts discuss these things as well (although whether the plaintiffs in those cases could be characterized as innocent violators is somewhat dubious). What was the solution? The idea of a warning letter ― similar to that required before a Rule 11 motion for sanctions is brought ― seemed like a good one. But there were at least two problems with this solution. First, it would be a complete waste of time to have a warning letter sent to the first (abusive) category of violators, who at any rate didn't deserve a warning. Second, if a warning letter was sent and the action thereafter voluntarily dismissed before the filing of the special motion, then the defendant (speaker) compensated for the legal fees for having the letter written and such letters can be quite costly. Thus, the warning letter idea was rejected. The next idea, being that the plaintiff should be allowed to voluntarily dismiss the infringing cause of action after the special motion was filed, was similarly rejected. Preparing and filing the special motion is costly, and if the plaintiff was simply allowed to voluntarily dismiss without any penalty, then the defendant could not be compensated for having to prepare and file the special motion. This was also a bad idea for the reason that a first category plaintiff engaged in abusive litigation could simply later re-file the same cause of action and cause the defendant the same trouble all over again. So this idea was rejected too. The third idea was to not assess attorney's fees against an innocent violator. While this sounds at first like a good idea, it is actually a terrible one. The problem here is the UPEPA would first have to define what an innocent violation was, and that would draw into question the plaintiff's intent. The parties would then have to litigate the plaintiff's intent, which would tremendously exacerbate the very litigation that the UPEPA was supposed to have quickly and efficiently gotten rid of in the first place. That idea was quickly axed. Where the UPEPA ended up is accurately described in the Satz and Johnson opinions: The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the cause of action that is the subject of the special motion, but that voluntary dismissal is treated as a resolution of the special motion in favor of the speaker and thus entitles the speaker to the mandatory award of attorney fees. This is a suitable middle-ground solution. By voluntarily dismissing the special motion, the plaintiff cuts off the attorney fees incurred by the speaker at the special motion ― the speaker could not, for instance, ask for attorney fees to file a reply brief (since no opposition brief was filed) or to attend the hearing on the special motion (which is no longer necessary). For those who would suggest that this outcome is harsh for an innocent violator, the bottom line is that if somebody is going to litigate in an area which might implicate protected expression issues, then they should be particularly careful. One who has stumbled into a violation of protected expression will not be rewarded by a 'get out of jail' card for their carelessness. This is basically what the Satz and Johnson opinions conclude and in this respect they are both right on target.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Garden of Love' making a comeback after city's removal
Slowly but surely the garden in front of the house on Ontario Avenue in Niagara Falls is beginning to grow again. The occupants of the house — Kenneth Johnson, Justine Burger and their three children, ages 2, 4 and 15 — are now looking forward to full bloom, the time when their flowers blossom and their raspberries, corn, green beans, zucchini, bell papers, cherry and Roma tomatoes ripen to the point where they are ready to be picked. They've added a few new touches this year. Four raised garden beds were donated by the Niagara Beautification Commission. Multi-colored lights to brighten up the space at night. A wooden 'welcome' sign, donated by a friend of Burger's grandmother. Burger said she's also working on a special touch of her own, a sign that will describe the space for what it is today — a 'Garden of Love.' It's intended as a nod to the outpouring of support Johnson and Burger's household received after city workers, acting on April 21 in response to Clean Neighborhood violations, removed all remnants of the garden they grew and tended in the front yard last year. 'We're getting there,' Burger said. 'We are.' Following media reports from multiple local news outlets, including the Niagara Gazette, hundreds of people from across the city and around the region, and even a couple from other parts of the country, reached out to offer their support. Some of those same people donated money to a GoFundMe account established to help Johnson and Burger cover the fines the city charged them for the cleanup. Thanks to their generosity, the couple managed to raise the full $2,296 to pay the bill, which they said they intend to do soon. 'The community and our neighbors have been outstanding,' Burger said. 'I'm so thankful to everybody who donated money for us and for even just the words of encouragement,' she added. 'The money isn't even that big of a deal. We're working people so we would have figured it out. But just receiving words of encouragement from people we have never met in our lives, that we cannot appreciate enough.' Mayor Robert Restaino's administration, in a nine-page press release, defended the city's actions, saying they came in response to complaints about the condition of the property and that the DPW documented multiple violations of the clean neighborhood ordinance on site. The ordinance allows the city to penalize residents and property owners for failing to address various violating conditions, which can include yard waste, overgrown grass and unregistered vehicles stored on the property. In its release, the mayor's administration said that following a review it concluded that the DPW handled the matter appropriately and within enforcement actions covered under the ordinance. The administration also insisted that, at the time of the DPW crew's visit, the couple's front yard looked more like a neglected lawn full of logs and bricks than a well-tended garden. During the cleanup, crew members removed logs, painted bricks and cinder blocks from the property, including those planted into the ground along the public right-of-way, the space between the sidewalk and the street. City officials said the items posed tripping hazards and, therefore, warranted removal. In addition, during their visit to the house, city workers removed several items from the side of the house and the backyard, including a refrigerator with a door on it that city officials said posed a potential hazard to children. Burger and Johnson are confining their new garden to the area between their front porch and the sidewalk, heeding the city's advice to keep the right-of-way free from logs, bricks and plantings. The couple said Mother Nature is proving less cooperative and sunflowers planted near the street edge are growing again. 'I honestly don't know what to do with it because everything is coming back up. There's sunflowers that are straight-growing. I can't stop that,' Johnson said. Neither Mayor Restaino nor City Council Chairman Jim Perry have contacted the couple in the weeks since their story went viral. They did receive personal visits and help in fixing up the property in front of the house from several other local political figures, including Falls Councilman Donta Myles, council candidate Noah Munoz and two candidates for Niagara County Legislature, Donte Richardson and Sean Mapp. Johnson and Burger say they're trying to get past the politics of the situation and are instead focusing on making sure their garden looks good this year. 'I'm just happy that we were able to bounce back,' Johnson said. 'That's what I'm happy about.'
