Holly v. Auld

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that such privilege is not limited to medical malpractice actions and includes defamation actions
• holding that in a defamation action, the peer review privilege statutes protected from disclosure allegedly defamatory statements made during peer review proceedings
• holding that the lienor’s motion to arbitrate filed in response to a complaint to discharge the lien did not meet the requirement of section 713.21(4
• recognizing that when a rule of civil procedure “is-clear and unambiguous and conveys a . clear and, definite meaning,” the plain language of the rule controls
• holding that “a literal interpretation of the language of a statute need not be given when to do so would lead to an unreasonable or ridiculous conclusion”
• stating that the legislature \deemed it wise to encourage a degree of self-regulation by the medical profession through peer review and evaluation\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).