Rapp v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rapp v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.

1 So. 3d 1284, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1271, 2009 WL 383545

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 2009

Docket4D05-4870

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 So. 3d 1284 (Rapp v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rapp v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 1 So. 3d 1284, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1271, 2009 WL 383545 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

This case is on remand from the Florida Supreme Court. See Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So.2d 1098 (Fla. Oct, 23, 2008). Based on that decision, we find that Rapp has stated a claim for defamation. We therefore reverse the circuit court’s dismissal of the defamation claim and affirm the dismissal of the false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. We also reverse the dismissal of the negligent training and supervision claims. On remand, Rapp shall be given leave to succinctly replead her claims, without excessive editorialization, so that there is one working complaint and not causes of action sprinkled in various pleadings.

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

DAMOORGIAN, J., did not participate in oral argument before this court, but has had the opportunity to review the case on remand.

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

ON REMAND FROM FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

This case is on remand from the Florida Supreme Court. See Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So.2d 1098 (Fla. Oct, 23, 2008). Based on that decision, we find that Rapp has stated a claim for defamation. We therefore reverse the circuit court’s dismissal of the defamation claim and affirm the dismissal of the false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. We also reverse the dismissal of the negligent training and supervision claims. On remand, Rapp shall be given leave to succinctly replead her claims, without excessive editorialization, so that there is one working complaint and not causes of action sprinkled in various pleadings.

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

DAMOORGIAN, J., did not participate in oral argument before this court, but has had the opportunity to review the case on remand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 So. 3d 1284, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1271, 2009 WL 383545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rapp-v-jews-for-jesus-inc-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack