JOSE YEYILLE
v.
JUSTIN COLE SPEIGEL, M.D.
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.
Absolute immunity applies to acts occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding.
[1] The litigation privilege, an affirmative defense, may be adjudicated on a motion to dismiss when the applicability of the privilege can be clearly discerned from the face…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“absolute immunity must be afforded to any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding”
Court's citation to Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co.
José Yeyille appealed a dismissal decision in a case against physician Justin Cole Speigel. The trial court applied litigation privilege to dispose of…
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 Litigation Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
José Yeyille, for appellant. Diaz Law Group and Rolando A. Diaz, for appellee. Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) (holding that “absolute immunity must be afforded to any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding”); LatAm Invs., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“While the litigation privilege is an affirmative defense, it can be adjudicated on a motion to dismiss if the applicability of the privilege can be clearly discerned from the face of the complaint.” (citation omitted) (citing Kidwell v. Gen. Motors Corp., 975 So. 2d 503, 505 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007))).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gutierrez v. In re Noemi D. Gutierrez, 399 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…da law, ‘a citizen . . . abuses the right to pro se access by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing the ability of the courts to devote their finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims.’” Yeyille v. Speigel, 373 So. 3d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (quoting Spencer, 751 So. 2d at 48); see also Clark v. Baney, 355 So. 3d 976, 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (“[A] court may bar a litigant from appearing pro se when the litigant’s ‘frivolous or excessive filings interfere with ti…
Authorities Cited
- Levin v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994)
- Kidwell v. Gen. Motors Corp. & Stephen Nichols, 975 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Latam Invs., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)