Myers v. Hodges
Citations
- 53 Fla. 197
Syllabus
<p>1. In order that defamatory words, published by parties, counsel or witnesses in the due course of a judicial procedure may be absolutely privileged' they must be connected with, or relevant or material to the cause in hand or subject of inquiry. If they be so published and are so relevant or pertinent to he subject of inquiry, no action will lie therefor, however false or malicious they in fact be.</p> <p><2. Defamatory words published in the due course of a judicial procedure, and not relevant or pertinent to the subject of inquiry, are conditionally or qualifiedly privileged — that is prima fade privileged. If the publications be irrelevant, they do not necessarily become actionable. They must be malicious as well as irrelevant.</p> <p>3. If it appear upon the trial that the libelous allegations were published in the due course of legal procedure, though it be proved, that the allegations were not pertinent to the legal procedure, still the law does not presume malice on the part of the defendant; but the plaintiff must prove express malice, to entitle him to recover. The simple fact that the libelous matters were published in the due course of legal procedure, though the libelous matters were impertinent, rebuts the prima fade presumption of malice, and makes it incumbent on the plaintiff to prove express malice, the case being what is called a conditionally privileged publication.</p> <p>4 In eases of conditionally privileged publications, the presumption which attends cases not so privileged of malice from the publication of libelous language does not prevail; the burden of proof is changed, and in order for the plaintiff to recover he is called upon affirmatively and expressly to show malice in the publisher. This malice may be inferred from the language of the publication itself, or may be proven by extrinsic circumstances, but malice is not inferable from the mere fact that the statements are untrue, and the mere fact that the defendant used ■ strong wor
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that in order for defamatory words to be absolutely privileged, “they must be connected with, or relevant or material to, the cause in hand or subject of inquiry”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Cockrell, Hooker, Parkhidlj, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
70 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Briscoe v. LaHueSupreme Court· 1983-03-07· cited 2,053×
- Briggs v. GoodwinD.C. Circuit· 1977-09-21· cited 153×
- Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Imperial Premium Finance, LLCEleventh Circuit· 2018-09-18· cited 129×
- Fridovich v. FridovichSupreme Court of Florida· 1992-04-02· cited 127×
- Nodar v. GalbreathSupreme Court of Florida· 1984-12-13· cited 116×
- Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc.Washington Supreme Court· 1989-07-20· cited 83×
- ECHEVARRIA, McCALLA, RAYMER v. ColeSupreme Court of Florida· 2007-02-01· cited 76×
- Loeb v. GeronemusSupreme Court of Florida· 1953-06-23· cited 52×
- Penick v. RatcliffeCourt of Appeals of Virginia· 1927-12-22· cited 50×
- Robertson v. Industrial Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Florida· 1954-10-19· cited 44×
- Axelrod v. CalifanoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1978-04-14· cited 43×
- DelMonico v. TraynorSupreme Court of Florida· 2013-02-14· cited 40×
- Pledger v. Burnup & Sims, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1983-04-20· cited 38×
- Gibson v. MaloneySupreme Court of Florida· 1970-01-28· cited 38×
- Kelly v. Palmer, Reifler, & Associates, P.A.S.D. Florida· 2010-01-11· cited 38×
- Silver v. LevinsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1994-12-28· cited 36×
- Stevens v. Tampa Electric Co.Supreme Court of Florida· 1921-04-12· cited 36×
- Abram v. OdhamSupreme Court of Florida· 1956-07-11· cited 35×
- Schreidell v. ShoterDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1986-12-02· cited 33×
- Sussman v. DamianDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1977-12-27· cited 31×
Cites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Abraham v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-06-15· cited 83×
- Calkins v. SumnerWisconsin Supreme Court· 1860-01-02· cited 64×
- Coogler v. RhodesSupreme Court of Florida· 1896-06-15· cited 60×
- Rice v. CoolidgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1876-12-01· cited 50×
- Conroy v. Pittsburgh TimesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1891-01-05· cited 48×
- McLaughlin v. CowleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1879-09-01· cited 47×
- Maulsby v. ReifsniderCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1888-06-13· cited 45×
- Neeb v. HopeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1886-01-04· cited 42×
- Cooley v. GalyonTennessee Supreme Court· 1902-09-15· cited 35×
- Barnes v. McCrateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1851-04-15· cited 27×
- Wilkinson v. Pensacola & Atlantic RailroadSupreme Court of Florida· 1895-01-15· cited 22×
- Jones v. BrownleeSupreme Court of Missouri· 1901-03-26· cited 19×
- Hollis v. MeuxCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-05-26· cited 18×
- Sherwood v. PowellSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1895-06-27· cited 18×
- Union Mut. Life Ins. v. ThomasNinth Circuit· 1897-10-04· cited 17×
- Gorsuch v. SwanTennessee Supreme Court· 1902-09-15· cited 15×
- Jennings v. PaineWisconsin Supreme Court· 1856-06-15· cited 13×
- Wyatt v. BuellCalifornia Supreme Court· 1874-07-01· cited 12×
- Jones v. ForehandSupreme Court of Georgia· 1892-03-26· cited 9×
- Monroe v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1904-10-19· cited 9×
Other cases named Myers v. Hodges
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
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.