ROBERT A. BECK, II, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM LIPKIND, NEIL L. PRUPIS AND JOSEPH LITTENBERG, APPELLEES
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.
In this defamation and conspiracy to defame case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the allegedly defamatory statements were either true, protected opinion, or protected by qualified business privilege.
Summary judgment was properly granted because the allegedly defamatory acts were either true, pure opinion, or protected by qualified business privilege. Since defamation was not established, the conspiracy to defame claim necessarily fails as well.
[1] Allegedly defamatory statements are not actionable if they are true, pure opinion, or protected by a qualified business privilege.
[2] Pure opinion occurs when a defendant makes a comment or opinion based on facts that are set forth in the article or are otherwise known or available to the reader or list…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[O]pinions cannot be defamatory.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that pure opinions are not actionable as defamation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert A. Beck II brought suit against William Lipkind, Neil L. Prupis, and Joseph Littenberg for defamation and conspiracy to defame. The trial court…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pure Opinion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the underlying suit for defamation and conspiracy to defame, we find that the trial court properly granted final summary judgment in favor of the defendants, William Lipkind, Neil L. Prupis, and Joseph Litten-berg, where there were no genuine issues of material fact remaining, and the defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). A careful review of the record reveals that the allegedly defamatory acts are not actionable because they were either trae, pure opinion, or protected by a qualified business privilege. Hoon v. Pate Constr. Co., 607 So. 2d 423, 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), review denied, 618 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1993)(“[O]pinions cannot be defamatory.”); From v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., 400 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1982)(“Pure opinion occurs when the defendant makes a comment or opinion based on facts which are set forth in the article or which are otherwise known or available to the reader or listener as a member of the public.”); Axelrod v. Califano, 357 So. 2d 1048, 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)(“[T]he elements essential to the finding of a conditionally privileged publication are: 1) Good faith; 2) an interest to be upheld; 3) a statement limited in its scope to this purpose; 4) a proper occasion; and 5) publication in a proper manner. To be qualifiedly privileged, the communication must be made by a person having a duty or interest in the subject matter to another having a corresponding duty or interest.”) (citations omitted).
Additionally, “[s]ince we have deterr mined that a cause of action for defamation, a necessary predicate to a cause of action for conspiracy to defame, has not been alleged or proven, an action for conspiracy to defame must also fail.” Hoon, 607 So. 2d at 430.
The-plaintiff’s remaining points lack merit.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheldon v. Teperson, 705 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So. 2d 803 (Fla.1984); Teare v. Local Union No. 295, 98 So. 2d 79 (Fla.1957); Coogler v. Rhodes, 38 Fla. 240, 21 So. 109 (1897); Beck v. Lipkind, 681 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Demby v. English, 667 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Tucker v. Resha, 634 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Northwest Florida Home Health Agency v. Merrill, 469 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Huszar v. Gross, 468 So. 2d 512 (Fla.…
-
Joseph Magre, M.D. v. Michael J. Charles, M.D., 729 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…that his December 27th letter was a statement of pure opinion and hence not actionable. We recognize that expressions of pure opinion are privileged and protected by the Constitution. Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So. 2d 803 (Fla.1984); Beck v. Lipkind, 681 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); From v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., 400 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1982). Dr. Charles’ letter, however, goes beyond pure opinion. Dr. Charles claimed that the meeting had a “total lack of a ba…
-
Sachs v. Venzer, 721 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Beck v. Lipkind, 681 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Hoon v. Pate Constr. Co., 607 So. 2d 423, 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Hour v. All State Pipe Supply Co., 487 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).…
Authorities Cited
- Shaw From v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., 400 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Axelrod v. Califano, 357 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Hoon v. Pate Constr. Co., Inc., 607 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)