YEHEZKEL "JESSE" SALMAN
v.
ELENA KENDALL
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 in the course of judicial proceedings are exempted from defamation liability under absolute immunity doctrine when they bear some relation to or connection with the subject of inquiry.
[1] Under the doctrine of absolute immunity, statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are exempt from defamation liability when they bear some relation to or con…
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“a party is 'exempted from liability to an action for defamatory words published in the course of judicial proceedings, regardless of how false or malicious the statements may be, as long as the statements bear some relation to or connection with the subject of inquiry.'”
Zuccarelli v. Barfield, cited for the standard governing absolute immunity in defamation cases
Yehezkel Salman appealed a circuit court judgment in Miami-Dade County. The case involves defamatory statements allegedly made during judicial proceed…
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 Absolute Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
The Diener Firm, P.A., and Erik D. Diener (Davie), for appellant. John C. Lukacs, P.A., and John C. Lukacs, Sr., for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Zuccarelli v. Barfield, 165 So. 3d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Under the doctrine of absolute immunity, a party is ‘exempted from liability to an action for defamatory words published in the course of judicial proceedings, regardless of how false or malicious the statements may be, as long as the statements bear some relation to or connection with the subject of inquiry.’” (quoting DelMonico v. Traynor, 116 So. 3d 1205, 1211 (Fla. 2013))); DelMonico, 116 So. 3d at 1219 (“The issue of whether a statement is connected with or related to the subject of inquiry is a threshold determination to be made by a judge, mindful that ‘much latitude must be allowed to the judgment and discretion of those who maintain a cause in court’ when ‘determining what is pertinent.’” (quoting Myers v. Hodges, 44 So. 357, 362 (Fla. 1907))); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Delmonico v. Traynor, 116 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2013)
- Zuccarelli v. Barfield, 165 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)