Blackwell v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Texas

Blackwell v. Davis

874 S.W.2d 950, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 1014, 1994 WL 151432

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 28, 1994

Docket09-93-320 CV

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 874 S.W.2d 950 (Blackwell v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blackwell v. Davis, 874 S.W.2d 950, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 1014, 1994 WL 151432 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

BURGESS, Justice.

This is a summary judgment case. Ann M. Blackwell filed a petition for damages and injunction seeking recovery of damages and injunctive relief against Harold G. Davis, alleging defamatory and libelous statements made by Davis about Blackwell.

Blackwell complains of statements made by Davis in two written reports. Blackwell acknowledges the two reports were made by Davis in the course of or in relation to judicial proceedings. The first point of error attacks the granting of the summary judgment on the cause of action for damages. The second point addresses the denial of the injunctive relief.

To sustain Blackwell’s first point, we would have to reverse a complete body of Texas law. Communications in the course of a judicial proceeding will not serve as the basis of a civil action for libel or slander, regardless of the negligence or malice with which they are made. Reagan v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 140 Tex. 105, 166 S.W.2d 909 (1942). This privilege extends to any statements made by witnesses and attaches to all aspects of the proceeding, including affidavits and any of the pleadings or other papers of the case. James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914, 917 (Tex.1982). Even perjured testimony¹ is privileged and cannot form the basis for civil liability. Morris v. Nowotny, 398 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1966, writ ref d n.r.e.). The rule applies to the opinion of expert witnesses. Clark v. Grigson, 579 S.W.2d 263, 265 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, writ ref'd [952]*952n.r.e.). The sole authority cited by Blackwell is Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc. v. Buck, 678 S.W.2d 612 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied 472 U.S. 1009, 105 S.Ct. 2704, 86 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985). This case does not involve statements made in connection with a judicial proceeding, thus it is clearly not on point or applicable. Point of error number one is overruled.

Likewise, we overrule point of error two. Blackwell argues she should have been granted an injunction against Davis prohibiting him from making statements damaging to her business reputation. Blackwell’s sole authority is Garland v. Shepherd, 445 S.W.2d 602, 604 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1969, no writ). This case simply states the general law of Texas as it relates to the principals of equity and injunctive relief. Blackwell cites Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 16.29 (Vernon Supp.1994), as authority to bring an action to enjoin an act likely to injure a business reputation. We find no ease applying this to the prior restraint of speech and certainly not to the prior restraint of privileged speech. We decline to do so.

The summary judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

BURGESS, Justice.

This is a summary judgment case. Ann M. Blackwell filed a petition for damages and injunction seeking recovery of damages and injunctive relief against Harold G. Davis, alleging defamatory and libelous statements made by Davis about Blackwell.

Blackwell complains of statements made by Davis in two written reports. Blackwell acknowledges the two reports were made by Davis in the course of or in relation to judicial proceedings. The first point of error attacks the granting of the summary judgment on the cause of action for damages. The second point addresses the denial of the injunctive relief.

To sustain Blackwell’s first point, we would have to reverse a complete body of Texas law. Communications in the course of a judicial proceeding will not serve as the basis of a civil action for libel or slander, regardless of the negligence or malice with which they are made. Reagan v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 140 Tex. 105, 166 S.W.2d 909 (1942). This privilege extends to any statements made by witnesses and attaches to all aspects of the proceeding, including affidavits and any of the pleadings or other papers of the case. James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914, 917 (Tex.1982). Even perjured testimony¹ is privileged and cannot form the basis for civil liability. Morris v. Nowotny, 398 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1966, writ ref d n.r.e.). The rule applies to the opinion of expert witnesses. Clark v. Grigson, 579 S.W.2d 263, 265 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, writ ref'd [952]*952n.r.e.). The sole authority cited by Blackwell is Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc. v. Buck, 678 S.W.2d 612 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied 472 U.S. 1009, 105 S.Ct. 2704, 86 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985). This case does not involve statements made in connection with a judicial proceeding, thus it is clearly not on point or applicable. Point of error number one is overruled.

Likewise, we overrule point of error two. Blackwell argues she should have been granted an injunction against Davis prohibiting him from making statements damaging to her business reputation. Blackwell’s sole authority is Garland v. Shepherd, 445 S.W.2d 602, 604 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1969, no writ). This case simply states the general law of Texas as it relates to the principals of equity and injunctive relief. Blackwell cites Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 16.29 (Vernon Supp.1994), as authority to bring an action to enjoin an act likely to injure a business reputation. We find no ease applying this to the prior restraint of speech and certainly not to the prior restraint of privileged speech. We decline to do so.

The summary judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 S.W.2d 950, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 1014, 1994 WL 151432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackwell-v-davis-texapp-1994.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack