FRANK STUART, M.D., APPELLANT,

v.

BETTY KIRBY, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• McCURDY v. J.C. Collis & Exxon Corp., 508 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
  …(Fla. 3rd DCA 1986). See also Teare v. Local Union No. 295, of the United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Industry, 98 So. 2d 79 (Fla.1957); Water & Sewer Utility Construction, Inc. v. Mandarin Utilities, Inc., 440 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In those instances where there is a qualified privilege to make statements potentially damaging to another, a plaintiff must prove express malice or malice in fact in order to recover. See Schreidell, Finnegan and Brite Electri…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Schreidell v. Rabbi Bernard P. Shoter, 500 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
  …v. United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Industry Local 295, 98 So. 2d 79 (Fla.1957); see also Loeb v. Geronemus, 66 So. 2d 241 (Fla.1953); Water & Sewer Utility Construction, Inc. v. Mandarin Utilities, Inc., 440 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Lundquist v. Alewine, 397 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Moreover, where a qualified privilege exists, plaintiffs must prove express malice or malice in fact in order to recover. Myers v. Hodges, 53 Fla. 197, 44 So. 357 (1907)…
• Hoon v. Pate Constr. Co., Inc., 607 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
  …(Fla. 4th DCA 1987). This reasoning would also apply to similar statements made to other officers of Fairview involved in the bid decision process. A claim similar to Pate’s was rejected in Water & Sewer Util. Constr., Inc. v. Mandarin Util., Inc., 440 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), in which a public utility company communicated to developers that a water and sewer contractor was not qualified and would never be qualified to perform work in the area controlled by the public utility. The utility was acknowle…

Authorities Cited

• Leffler v. Grand Union Co. & Crawford & Co., 409 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)