JOS. D. FARISH, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
NANCY D. W. WAKEMAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Statements made by a witness under subpoena in an official legislative proceeding are absolutely privileged, even if defamatory.
[1] Defamatory statements made by a witness under compulsory subpoena in an official legislative proceeding are absolutely privileged.
[2] Statements made by a witness before a legislative tribunal, which are relevant or material to the inquiry, are absolutely privileged.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff sued defendant for defamation, alleging false statements made under oath before a legislative committee and published to the media. Depositi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment entered in favor of defendant in a defamation action. Plaintiff sued defendant charging that she made certain statements under oath before the Florida House of Representatives Select Committee on Impeachment of certain Supreme Court Justices. The specific statements made are recited in paragraph 3 of the complaint and are alleged to be false and defamatory. The complaint also alleges that the statement in question was made before news media, television cameras, electronic recording devices and that the same was steno-graphically reported. It is also alleged that the newspapers, television and radio thereafter published the statements to the people of the State of Florida and the Nation.
Depositions were taken which indicate that the hearing in question was an official proceeding before the Committee of the House of Representatives and that the defendant was under compulsory subpoena at the time of her testimony. The hearing was public in nature. The trial court found for defendant on motion for summary judgment on the theory that the defendant’s statements were absolutely privileged. In so ruling, the trial court stated:
The law not only in the State of Florida, but by the overwhelming weight of authority in these United States is that' defamatory words published by witnesses who appear before judicial and legislative tribunals involuntarily and pursuant to legal subpoena, which utterances are relevant or material to the cause or subject of inquiry are absolutely privileged. See McNayr v. Kelly, 184 So. 2d 428 (Fla.1966), and Fiore v. Rogero, 144 So. 2d 99 (Fla.2nd DCA 1962); Kelly v. Daro, 47 Cal.App.2d 418, 118 P. 2d 37 (1941).
We conclude that the findings of the trial judge were correct and that the specific comments alleged in the complaint are the subject of an absolute privilege. As such, summary judgment was properly entered for defendant and same is hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and STEWART, JAMES R., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Feldman v. Stephen Glucroft, M.D., 522 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1988)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (statements of state law enforcement agent as witness in criminal trial); Bell v. Gellert, 469 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (statements made in labor grievance complaint which were relevant to that complaint); Farish v. Wakeman, 385 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (compelled testimony before a legislative committee); Stone v. Rosen, 348 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (absolute privilege of citizen to make complaint against Florida Bar member); Seidel v. Hill, 264 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 197…
-
Ridge v. Rademacher, 402 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…rections. . Pleadings or sworn statements in judicial proceedings may be “absolute”. Coogler v. Rhodes, 38 Fla. 240, 21 So. 109 (1897); Fiore v. Rogero, 144 So. 2d 99 (Fla.2d DCA 1962); McNayr v. Kelly, 184 So. 2d 428 (Fla.1966); Farish v. Wakeman, 385 So. 2d 2 (Fla.4th DCA 1980). Unsworn statements in legislative and executive proceedings may also be “absolute”. Robertson v. Industrial Insurance Company, 75 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1954); McNayr v. Kelly, Supra; Stone v. Rosen, 348 So. 2d 387 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Kr…
-
Jamason v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., 450 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…himself to a number of sanctions once taking the oath to tell the truth — repeated under oath what was said to him about the appellant police chief, admittedly a public official. Nazzaro’s testimony was absolutely privileged. See Farish v. Wakeman, 385 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA), dismissed, 394 So. 2d 1151 (Fla.1980); Sussman v. Damian, 355 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Appellees’ privilege was qualified; that is, it was incumbent upon them to report what appeared in the deposition in an accurate, fair and…
Authorities Cited
- McNAYR v. Kelly, 184 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1966)
- Fiore v. Rogero, 144 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)