Woodbury v. Staros

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Woodbury v. Staros

219 So. 2d 54

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 1969

DocketNo. K-196

StatusPublished

This text of 219 So. 2d 54 (Woodbury v. Staros) 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

Woodbury v. Staros, 219 So. 2d 54 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in a libel action. The sole question presented for review is whether the admittedly defamatory statements made by the appellant concerning appellee were made under circumstances which rendered such statements protected by the qualified privilege doctrine. Our review of the record, briefs, and consideration of the arguments of counsel fail to show that the statements which are the subject matter of this litigation, when taken in the context and circumstances in which they were made, come within the qualified privilege doctrine. Gibson, et al. v. Ma-loney, 214 So.2d 89 (Fla.App. 1st 1968).

Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error in this or any other respect, the judgment appealed is therefore affirmed.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in a libel action. The sole question presented for review is whether the admittedly defamatory statements made by the appellant concerning appellee were made under circumstances which rendered such statements protected by the qualified privilege doctrine. Our review of the record, briefs, and consideration of the arguments of counsel fail to show that the statements which are the subject matter of this litigation, when taken in the context and circumstances in which they were made, come within the qualified privilege doctrine. Gibson, et al. v. Ma-loney, 214 So.2d 89 (Fla.App. 1st 1968).

Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error in this or any other respect, the judgment appealed is therefore affirmed.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 2d 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodbury-v-staros-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack