Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ773 | |
| 2 | Ṁ106 | |
| 3 | Ṁ104 | |
| 4 | Ṁ75 | |
| 5 | Ṁ45 |
Does anyone ( @TonyPepperoni ?) want to make a case for YES? I generally agree with the idea that they have not "won" this lawsuit
Not to say they have lost, but there isn't anything that clearly indicates a win.
Resolving this NO, sources are not claiming that they won, and the outcome doesn't appear to be a win
@mods This can resolve NO, Disney lost the trial on Jan 31 and abandoned their appeal in March. See, e.g., https://www.npr.org/2024/03/28/1241296687/florida-governor-ron-desantis-disney-legal-battle-settled
They settled, nobody won or lost.
Per your source: "Wednesday, Disney and the DeSantis-appointed board announced they had settled all the lawsuits pending in state court"
Disney literally lost. From the article: "DeSantis appointed a new board to oversee the district. Disney challenged the move in federal court but lost."
The settlement resolves the appeal of their loss.
Edit: In addition, the question posed was, "Will Disney win their lawsuit against Ron DeSantis?" The answer to that question is no, because they explicitly lost and failed to overturn that loss on appeal. But even if we overlook that, the answer is no; a settlement isn't winning their lawsuit any more than the court's ruling against them was.
The settlement per your source was for "all the lawsuits pending in state court"
You will need to prove what the settlement entails and who that settlement favors.
Would Disney settle if it didn't benefit them more? I don't think so seeing as DeSantis getting the board appointed was per Florida Law and not a lawsuit.
The settlement was for the appeal of Disney's loss, which we know because Disney publicly lost in state court in January. A party that loses in trial court and has not successfully appealed has lost their lawsuit; a successful appeal can overturn that loss, but it's not ambiguous.
"You will need to prove what the settlement entails and who that settlement favors."
Why? The question doesn't ask whether Disney will settle their lawsuit--it asks whether they will win their lawsuit. They lost at the trial court and failed to prevail on appeal; there is no reading of "win their lawsuit" that resolves anything but "no" under these facts.
As to whom the settlement favors, it's not Disney. Whatever terms they could have settled for prior to their January loss, their bargaining position decayed significantly once the court ruled against them. They may have mitigated the scope of their loss by trading away their appeal, but I really don't see the argument for this being anything but failing to win in court.
Since they failed to win in court.
Sorry, I've contributed to confusion by being sloppy in describing what's happened in this case.
Disney sued in state and federal court. The question appears to refer specifically to the federal case (given that's what the news article refers to) but doesn't say so specifically.
Regardless, Disney has settled all its litigation and failed to win any of the cases. See, e.g., settlement of the appeal: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68239629/31/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-governor-state-of-florida/
I don't have a full list of the state cases in front of me, but the NPR article above quotes DeSantis as claiming that they've prevailed in each action. I wouldn't normally take his word as bond, but it appears to be accurate in this instance.
As for whether Disney prevailed in some way by forcing Florida into a settlement advantageous to the company, I contend that (a) it doesn't matter under the terms of the question, and (b) that they didn't win under that analysis either. See, again, the NPR article above. Disney tried a maneuver that "would have taken power away from the new board and reserved for Disney all decisions concerning development at the theme parks." But in light of their losses in court and the settlement, "that deal is now "null and void.""
(As a side note, I teach the maneuver Disney used in a law class. I will always be grateful to them for dropping a very cool real-world example of a famously weird tactic the day before I was scheduled to teach it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_lives_clause.)
Very sincere thanks for pushing for high standards on the question resolution! I think it clearly resolves "no" but always appreciate the push.
Per the creators clarifying comment below:
I am simply saying that if Disney settled with Florida, than that would usually entail that Disney "won" on the settlement side. Yes they did appeal, the appeal was not a loss or a win, it was a settlement from my understanding.
I, however, am retiring from Manifold, so I will leave this up to other mods and have made note of such in the Report section we use.
Thank you and appreciate the communication. I can see both sides, however I do feel this is a bit trickier of a resolution that it is a straight forward resolution.
I don't know how to interpret the creator's comment, other than that if Disney achieved something with a settlement that would be equivalent to winning the legal action, we could say they "won" the case. I don't think that would be technically accurate, but it's not a crazy interpretation. As it is, though, it looks like Disney walked away without the operational control they wanted (and used to have) over the property. I don't see any indication that they won anything significant in the legal action.
@johnleoks Understood. These types of legal actions don’t always go to trial (see also: Dominion), so I wanted to make sure the bases are covered. Thanks!