Albritton v. Gandy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that common law immunity attaches \no matter how false or malicious or badly motivated a statement may be as long as the statements or actions fall within `the scope of duty' of the public official\
• upholding an award of emotional distress damages on a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship
• immunity did not apply where county commissioner engaged in campaign to have another county employee fired because it was not within commissioner’s duties to hire and fire
• “[The county commissioner] was not in charge of hiring or firing, and thus, there was no official purpose for [the county commissioner’s] statements regarding [the county employee’s] county employment.”
• “[I]f it is within the scope of a public officer's duty to discharge an employee and give reasons for doing so, a statement by the public official regarding the reasons for the dismissal of the employee is absolutely privileged.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).