BOB GLICKMAN A/K/A BOB GLICK, APPELLANT,
v.
ALAN POTAMKIN, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1984-07-03
No. 83-2858
Before HUBBART, NESBITT and BAS-KIN, JJ.
454 So. 2d 612 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1984) Positive Treatment
Cited by 14 cases
Opinion of the Court
BASKIN, Judge.

BASKIN, Judge.

In a defamation action, the affirmative defenses of truth, good motive and qualified privilege present factual questions for resolution by the jury. See Curtis Publishing Co. v. Fraser, 209 F. 2d 1 (5th Cir.1954); Lewis v. Evans, 406 So. 2d 489 (Fla.2d DCA 1981); Drennen v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 328 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Because appellant asserted these defenses, we find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).

Reversed and remanded.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • McCURDY v. J.C. Collis & Exxon Corp., 508 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
    …of qualified privilege is a factual determination for resolution by the jury. See Hartley & Parker, Inc. v. Copeland, 51 So. 2d 789 (Fla.1951); Schreidell v. Shoter, 500 So. 2d at 231; Southern Bell v. Roper, 482 So. 2d at 539; Glickman v. Potamkin, 454 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); review denied, 461 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1985). One seeking to recover on a claim predicated on tortious interference with a business relationship must establish: [*383] (1) the existence of a business relationship, not necessarily ev…
  • Lipsig v. Zahid A. Ramlawi, 760 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
    …intent to steal but had merely failed to follow defendant’s procedure, the statement was not true and plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict precluding the affirmative defenses of truth.and good motives). See also, e.g., Glickman v. Potamkin, 454 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)(summary judgment not proper where issue of ‘truth’ presented factual question for jury); Drennen v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 328 So. 2d 52, 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)(direeted verdict for defendant on truth defense reversed wher…
  • Schreidell v. Rabbi Bernard P. Shoter, 500 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
    …s disputed as to the existence or nonexistence of a privilege there is a mixed question of law and fact, and the fact issue is to be determined by the jury. Hartley & Parker, Inc. v. Copeland, 51 So. 2d 789 (Fla.1951); see also Glickman v. Potamkin, 454 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (in a defamation action, the affirmative defenses of truth, good motive and qualified privilege present factual questions for resolution by the jury), review denied, 461 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1985); but see Myers v. Hodges, 53 Fla. at 2…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw