Kemper v. Fort
Citations
- 219 Pa. 85
- 67 A. 991
- 1907 Pa. LEXIS 609
Syllabus
<p>Libel — Libelous matter in pleadings — Privileged communication.</p> <p>When alleged libelous matter in pleadings is relevant and pertinent there is no liability for uttering it. Where the question of the relevancy and pertinency of matters alleged in pleadings is to be inquired into, all doubt should be resolved in favor of relevancy and pertinency.</p> <p>Where a testator devises and bequeaths a portion of his estate to his executors, to pay over the income to a daughter for life, and after her death to divide the principal among her children, and á guardian of one of the two children of the daughter files a petition for a review of the accounts of the executors, and the other son of the daughter notifies the executors that he was her only legitimate child, and that the petitioner’s ward was illegitimate, and the executors set up this matter in their answer to the petition, the daughter cannot maintain an action against them for an alleged libel.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- \[s]trict legal relevance need not be demonstrated; instead the allegedly defamatory statements must have only some connection to the subject matter of the pending action\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Audenried, Brown, Elkin, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter, Stewart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
38 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Greenberg v. Aetna InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1967-11-14· cited 112×
- Post v. MendelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-03-27· cited 105×
- Moses v. McWilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-09-28· cited 100×
- Thornton v. RhodenCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1966-09-21· cited 83×
- Matthis v. KennedySupreme Court of Minnesota· 1954-11-26· cited 72×
- Smith v. GriffithsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-04-19· cited 65×
- Barto v. FelixSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-10-06· cited 63×
- Penick v. RatcliffeCourt of Appeals of Virginia· 1927-12-22· cited 50×
- Rose v. WissingerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-01-08· cited 34×
- Milliner v. EnckSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1998-03-19· cited 27×
- Robinson v. Home Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa· 1951-10-16· cited 27×
- Young v. YoungD.C. Circuit· 1927-04-04· cited 22×
- Hammer v. FordeSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1914-03-06· cited 15×
- Ganassi v. Buchanan Ingersoll, P.C.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-03-25· cited 14×
- Read v. BakerD. Delaware· 1977-03-25· cited 13×
- Post v. MendelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-07-10· cited 11×
- Marquette v. Marquette's ExecutorsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1921-01-14· cited 10×
- Burgess v. Turle & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1923-05-25· cited 9×
- In re the Estate of UnderhillNew York Surrogate's Court· 1941-05-26· cited 8×
- Passon v. SpritzerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-05-02· cited 7×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.