Burns v. A. G. Van Metre Constr., Inc.

Virginia Circuit Court

Burns v. A. G. Van Metre Constr., Inc.

23 Va. Cir. 489, 1991 Va. Cir. LEXIS 100

CourtVirginia Circuit Court

DecidedMay 8, 1991

DocketCase No. (Law) 103786

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 Va. Cir. 489 (Burns v. A. G. Van Metre Constr., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Virginia Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burns v. A. G. Van Metre Constr., Inc., 23 Va. Cir. 489, 1991 Va. Cir. LEXIS 100 (Va. Super. Ct. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE THOMAS A. FORTKORT

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s demurrer to the defendant’s counterclaim. The court heard oral argument and considered written memorandum. For the following reasons, the demurrer is sustained.

Defendants have filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs. The counterclaim alleges that the plaintiff’s republication of their filed motion for judgment has libeled the defendants.

The filing of the motion for judgment creates a public record to which anyone has a right of access. Under the common law, such records were privileged against actions for libel and slander. Since in this case there is no allegation of pre-filing disclosure, the publication of the pleadings which were at the time of publication a public record is privileged. See, Bull v. Logetronics, Inc., 323 F. Supp. 115 (E.D. Va. 1971). The judicial action requirement applies to incidents of trial or hearings not yet part of a public record.

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

By JUDGE THOMAS A. FORTKORT

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s demurrer to the defendant’s counterclaim. The court heard oral argument and considered written memorandum. For the following reasons, the demurrer is sustained.

Defendants have filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs. The counterclaim alleges that the plaintiff’s republication of their filed motion for judgment has libeled the defendants.

The filing of the motion for judgment creates a public record to which anyone has a right of access. Under the common law, such records were privileged against actions for libel and slander. Since in this case there is no allegation of pre-filing disclosure, the publication of the pleadings which were at the time of publication a public record is privileged. See, Bull v. Logetronics, Inc., 323 F. Supp. 115 (E.D. Va. 1971). The judicial action requirement applies to incidents of trial or hearings not yet part of a public record.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Va. Cir. 489, 1991 Va. Cir. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-a-g-van-metre-constr-inc-vacc-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack