What? $10M is waaay too much for a team to spend on goaltending—the only teams in that neighborhood are NYR, DET, and DAL. Last year’s Cup finalists both spend less than $7M total, while Washington and Montreal are both below $8M.

I don’t know about California, but statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are generally privileged against defamation liability, so suing for defamation in response to the original lawsuit would probably be a nonstarter. So the only grounds for a defamation suit would be the private statements she made…

Jury verdicts are extremely difficult to disturb on the basis of bias or something similar. While the optics are horrible, they could easily just say “we were just so overjoyed to have had the opportunity to clear this poor man’s name” and be free and clear of any argument the decision was tainted.

For what, exactly? Abuse of Process/Malicious Prosecution are the only causes of action I can even conceive of, but the fact that Doe (presumably—I’m not terribly well versed in the procedural history here) survived a motion to dismiss suggests such an action would be doomed to failure.

As a lawyer that understands how civil trials work . . .

I’m not saying Havlat would have provided the same production for all 3 Cup runs to date. He would have provided similar production for a year or two (which he managed to do despite being in Minnesota) before being jettisoned in favor of a different splashy acquisition or cap space to retain guys like Buff, Ladd, or…

If Hossa stays in Pittsburgh, he never signs with Chicago, who keeps Marty Havlat for shorter money, which gives them more flexibility to retain pieces after the 2010 Cup run.

Seriously, what does the last decade of the NHL look like if the Penguins had found a way to keep him?

That’s because Brad Marchand would have been actually targeting the knees.

If the person is reasonably qualified, no court of law would ever determine any duties have been violated. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there just because the family owns a controlling interest.  

If even one non-family member owns shares, though, all the fiduciary duties are still in play.

Well, the union drive worked out so well for Gawker.

This isn’t even the first time Dmitry Orlov has lit up an oppose forward for daring to wear his number

I would go so far as to say it looks quite bad.

There’s nothing wrong with opinions. “I like hot guys in skimpy cosplay” is an opinion, and there’s nothing wrong with it.

Because they’re making a statement, man.

I’m not annoyed by anyone who likes to see hot guys in skimpy cosplay.

“Objectification is bad, you guys!”

Io9 spoiled it for me before I had a chance to watch the show. Can’t honestly say it detracted from the viewing experience.

I finally knocked the show out a few weeks ago, after Gizmodo/IO9 had taken to revealing this particular plot point in the titles of different articles. It really doesn’t detract from the show at all to know.