EARL WOODBURY, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD P. STAROS, APPELLEE
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.
The appellate court affirmed a jury verdict in a libel action, holding that the defamatory statements made by the appellant were not protected by qualified privilege. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's proceedings.
No, the statements were not protected by the qualified privilege doctrine. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the statements, in context, fell within the protection of qualified privilege.
“The sole question presented for review is whether the admittedly defamatory statements made by the appellant concerning appellee were made under circumstances which rendered such statements protected by the qualified privilege doctrine.”
This quote frames the central legal issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant made defamatory statements about the appellee. The core issue on appeal was whether these statements were protected by a qualified privi…
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.
Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in a libel action. The sole question presented for review is whether the admittedly defamatory statements made by the appellant concerning appellee were made under circumstances which rendered such statements protected by the qualified privilege doctrine. Our review of the record, briefs, and consideration of the arguments of counsel fail to show that the statements which are the subject matter of this litigation, when taken in the context and circumstances in which they were made, come within the qualified privilege doctrine. Gibson, et al. v. Ma-loney, 214 So.2d 89 (Fla.App. 1st 1968).
Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error in this or any other respect, the judgment appealed is therefore affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pacemaker Corp. v. Euster, 357 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…all such matters had been removed from controversy by the settlement, general release, and dismissal of the prior action with prejudice. Cf. D.F.S., Inc. v. Beasley Crane Service & Sales, Inc., 251 So. 2d 727 (Fla.2d DCA 1971); Robinson v. Friedman, 219 So. 2d 54 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). Following the settlement and release, there remained as a basis for future controversy only the one-year warranty above quoted and disputes which might arise with relation to the quality and suffi [*211] ciency of the repairs whic…
Authorities Cited
- Gibson v. Maloney, 214 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)