You are now logged in. Forgot your password? The subhead was correct all along. The lawsuit, of course, is by some current and past University of Louisville students, not the University itself; I knew that, but as I was editing the headline I somehow dropped that word. Sorry about that, and many thanks to Ben Llaneta for the correction. From Hornback v. Powell , decided Friday by the Kentucky Court of Appeals:. According to the record, Powell's claims resulted in the University of Louisville self-imposing a postseason ban on its men's basketball program for the seasonβ¦.
KRS Chapter addresses prostitution offenses, and [Plaintiffs] direct our attention to case law holding that one of the purposes of prostitution statutes is to protect the public health and welfare. KRS Even if [Plaintiffs] had provided such proof, [Plaintiffs] are at best remote and unconnected third parties who cannot reasonably be characterized as being injured or damaged by Powell's alleged unlawful conductβ¦. Plaintiffs also cite the Kentucky "Son of Sam" law,] which states: "Every person contracting with any person or the representative or assignee of any person accused or convicted of a crime in this state, with respect to the reenactment of such crime, by way of a movie, book, magazine article, radio, or television presentation, live entertainment of any kind, or from the expression of such person's thoughts, feelings, opinions, or emotions regarding such crime, shall pay over to the Kentucky Claims Commission any moneys which would otherwise, by terms of such contract, be owing to the person so accused or convicted or his representatives.
And finally, [Plaintiffs] cannot demonstrate that they are "victims" of [Defendants'] conduct in any meaningful senseβ¦. Plaintiffs] go on to argue β¦ that they may prosecute a claim against [Defendants] for "tortious interference with a prospective business advantage.
In order to sustain a claim of tortious interference with a prospective business advantage, [Plaintiffs] must offer "evidence of a motive or intent β¦ to interfere" with the business relationship. Rather, the only motivator cited by [Plaintiffs] was Powell's desire to be financially compensated.
Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants'] actions constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress sufficient to sustain a claim for damagesβ¦. Further, this tort "requires conduct intended to cause emotional distress in the victim.
