Case Record Appendix

Case Appendix The Revised Complaint is found on page A5 in the above.

Isn't this the Anatomy of a classic "Sham Lawsuit"?
What are the specific Counts? 18 Counts in Total are alleged.
What are the specific facts alleged to support each of the counts?
What parts actually remained at the time of trial? (IED & Defamation)

COUNTS AS FURTHER OUTLINED BELOW

Count 1 is where the alleged "Facts" appear claimed against Smolinski and Bell.
Count 13 is where the alleged "Facts" appear claimed against Murray. ( All Stricken, Dismissed)
Counts 9 - 12 is where the alleged claims are made by B&B Transportation against Smolinski and Bell. (All Dropped or Abandoned)

Against Janice Smolinski
Alleged "Facts" found in par. 1-11 of count 1 

• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count 1)
• Defamation (Count 3)
• Invasion of Privacy (Count 5) - (DROPPED)
• Tortious Interference Buisness (Count 7) - (DROPPED)
• Trespass (Count 9 for B&B) - (DROPPED)
• Tortious Interference Buisness (Count 11 for B&B) - (DROPPED)

Against Paula Bell
Alleged "Facts" found in par. 1-11 of count 1 

• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count 2)
• Defamation (Count 4)
• Invasion of Privacy (Count 6) - (DROPPED)
• Tortious Interference Buisness (Count 8) - (DROPPED)
• Trespass (Count 10 for B&B) - (DROPPED)
• Tortious Interference Buisness (Count 12 for B&B) - (DROPPED) 

Against John Murray (all stricken on a granted motion, Murray was dismissed as defendant on MSJ)
par. 1-5 of count 13

• Invasion of Privacy (Count 13)
• Invasion of Privacy, Tortious Appropriation of name and likeness (Count 14)
• Invasion of Privacy, Unreasonable Publicity of Private Life (Count 15)
• Invasion of Privacy, False Light (Count 16)
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count 17)
• Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count 18) 

For a good explanation of why all these claims against John Murray 5 counts worth could not stand.
Read the memorandum here.

What were the alleged statements of fact that actually fell out to be considered at the trial? What were the claims of what was being said made in the complaint? (see count 1 from above in par. 5, accused her of being "a murderer".) Is that actually what you see from below?

http://smolinski-appeal.blogspot.com/2015/05/httpscasetext.html
Quote from Appeals Court:
The court found three statements made by the defendants to be defamatory. Specifically, it found two sets of statements made to the plaintiff's friends, Fran Vrabel and DePallo, to be defamatory:

(1) “Janice Smolinski told [Vrabel] on several occasions that [the plaintiff] ‘did something to her son’ and that ‘she believes that either [the plaintiff] or someone in her family murdered her son’ ”; and

(2) “Janice Smolinski approached [DePallo] and said you do not know what [the plaintiff] is capable of; she said she does not believe [the plaintiff] killed her son, personally, but she knows where he is and [Janice] Smolinski thought ‘she's involved.’ ”

(3) The court also found the following statement made by the defendants to an unidentified man at the plaintiff's gym to be defamatory: “[The plaintiff] drove to her gym, the defendants were following her, and [the plaintiff] says, ‘a guy came and said those people (referring to the Smolinskis) just followed you in and said you were a murderer.’ ”

- Obviously Vrabel and DePallo as Madeline's friends, did not believe what was being said here was a Statement of FACT! They did not stop being her friend, now did they?

- Do you notice what is missing from the complaint? No where in it does the complaint say the accusation is false! That is just amazing! What does it say? It simply says there is no factual basis! It is not really quite the same to me, as flatly saying without any hesitation or question that "this is a false statement of fact". VERY CURIOUS! Isn't it true that she is still by the police reports considered to be a suspect or a person of interest? The case is still unsolved.

TRIAL COURT GAVE A JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF (Now Being Appealed)

Quote:
The court, after thoroughly stating its relevant findings of fact and bases upon which it found the defendants liable to the plaintiff for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation, set forth its award.

As to the plaintiff's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $32,000, and

as to her claim of defamation, the court awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $7500,
for a total compensatory damages award in the amount of $39,500.

Moreover, the court acted within its authority to add punitive damages to the award for attorney's fees and costs in an amount equal to one-third of the total compensatory damages award, or $13,166.67