Hoch v. Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that mere attendance of an attorney at a meeting does not render everything said at the meeting privileged, but if the communication is related to the rendition of legal services, it may be covered by attorney-client privilege
• “the statement about [plaintiff] suggests that his judicial duties could be improperly influenced. This imputes conduct or a condition incompatible with the proper exercise of his judgeship and constitutes slander per se.”
• general damages are presumed in slander per se actions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).