As if there was any doubt, north Minneapolis blogger John Hoff — a.k.a. "Johnny Northside — announced today he will appeal Friday's $60,000 judgment against him.

Jurors determined Hoff did not defame former north side neighborhood official Jerry Moore; they found Hoff's statment that Moore "was involved in a high-profile fraudulent mortgage" was not false. However, jurors said Hoff should pony up the 60K because he "tortiously interfered" with Moore's subsequent employment at the University of Minnesota. 

The award left media lawyers flabbergasted because, as Faegre & Benson's John Borger puts it, "If the statement was true, there should be no recovery. There is caselaw in Minnesota that the providing of truthful information is not a basis for tortious interference."

Hoff's lawyer, Paul Godfread, says "we will file any post-verdict motions that are appropriate." Two common ones: filing for judgment based on a matter of law, and a motion for a new trial. The former wouldn't challenge the jury's fact-finding, instead arguing there is only one proper legal conclusion — no monetary damages.

Judge Denise Reilly, who heard the case, would rule on those motions. Depending on her decision, either side could go to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and ultimately, the state Supreme Court. Moore's lawyer, Jill Clark, was not available for comment.

In court, Clark argued that Hoff's speech represented "conduct" that opened the door to contract interference. Media lawyers such as Borger (who represents the Star Tribune and MinnPost, among other clients) and Paul Hannah (Pioneer Press) say Hoff's blog post alone isn't enough. The coming motion and appeal may turn on whether Clark and Moore established some other Hoff action that justified the damage award.

I'm still talking to lawyers and hope to have a deeper analysis sometime this week.