green
Positive treatment
6.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1940 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1940
1983
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Receded from
Kimberly Grippa v. Ronald Rubin
Ct. App. 1999); Ange v. State, 123 So. 916, 917 (Fla. 1929) (receded from by Fridovich, 598 So. 2d at 69 ); see also BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d at 1274–77.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
AGM Investors, LLC v. Business Law Group, P.A.
Fridovich, 598 So.2d at 66 (quoting Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538 , 123 So. 916, 917 (1929), for the proposition that the absolute privilege “arises immediately upon the doing of any act required or permitted by law in the due course of the judicial proceedings or as necessarily preliminary thereto” (emphasis omitted)); Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So.3d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Ange for same proposition), approved, No. SC15-1477, 217 So.3d 68 , 2017 WL 526508 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017). 4 Requiring that conduct preceding the institution of litigation be necessarily preliminary to judici…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stephen Fischer v. Richard Debrincat and Jason Debrincat
As a general proposition, the litigation privilege “extends to the protection of the judge, parties, counsel, and witnesses, and arises immediately upon the doing of any act required or permitted by law in the due course of the judicial proceedings or as necessarily preliminary thereto.” Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538, 541 , 123 So. 916, 917 (1929) (emphasis added), receded from in part by Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65, 69 (Fla.1992) (holding that “defamatory statements voluntarily made by private individuals to the police or the state’s attorney prior to the institution of criminal…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DelMonico v. Traynor
Gooch Co., 157 Fla. 716 , 27 So.2d 72, 75 (1946) (noting that "[t]he rule adopted by this court in determining whether or not words employed by a pleader in a judicial proceeding are privileged and not actionable is set forth in the case of Myers ”); Taylor v. Alropa Corp., 138 Fla. 137 , 189 So. 230, 231 (1939) (applying absolute privilege on the basis of Myers because “the words appearing in the pleading ... were relevant and were properly used in connection with the foreclosure proceeding”); Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538 , 123 So. 916, 917 (1929) (citing to Myers and holding that the abs…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ball v. D'LITES ENTERPRISES, INC.
We cited to Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538, 541 , 123 So. 916, 917 (1929), for the proposition that the privilege extends to statements in judicial proceedings or those “necessarily preliminary thereto.” In Ange , however, the privileged statement was one made to the county judge in order to obtain a judicial warrant from the judge.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelly v. Palmer, Reifler, & Associates, P.A.
Id. at 1326 (quoting Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538, 541 , 123 So. 916, 917 (Fla.1929)) (emphasis in original).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ingalsbe v. Stewart Agency, Inc.
See, e.g., Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65, 66 (Fla.1992); Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538 , 123 So. 916, 917 (1929), receded from on other grounds by Fridovich, 598 So.2d at 68-69 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Boca Investors Group, Inc. v. Potash
Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538 , 123 So. 916, 917 (1929) (emphasis added), receded from in part in Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65 (Fla.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Nat. Title v. Guarantee Title
In Levin the supreme court held: although we did not directly address this issue in Fridovich, [ Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65 (Fla.1992)] we did state in that case that absolute immunity "`arises immediately upon the doing of any act required or permitted by law in the due course of the judicial proceedings. '" 598 So.2d at 66 (quoting Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538, 541 , 123 So. 916, 917 (1929)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stucchio v. Tincher
Hence, this case appears to come within the protection announced by our supreme court in Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538 , 123 So. 916, 917 (Fla.1929): The rule of privilege as applied to statements made in the course of judicial proceedings is not restricted to trials of actions, but includes proceedings before a competent court or magistrate in the due course of law or in the administration of justice which is to result in any determination or action by such court or officer.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stewart v. Sun Sentinel Co.
Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538 , 123 So. 916, 917 (1929) (the privilege extends to statements made in judicial *363 proceedings as well as those "necessarily preliminary thereto") [1] .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Silver v. Levinson
The actions of defendant did not occur during the course of judicial proceedings or constitute a necessary preliminary act to judicial proceedings as contemplated by the supreme court in Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538, 540 , 123 So. 916, 917 (1929) and Myers v. Hodges, 53 Fla. 197 , 44 So. 357 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Levin, Middlebrooks v. US Fire Ins. Co.
Moreover, although we did not directly address this issue in Fridovich , we did state in that case that absolute immunity "` arises immediately upon the doing of any act required or permitted by law in the due course of the judicial proceedings. '" 598 So.2d at 66 (alteration in original) (quoting Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538, 541 , 123 So. 916, 917 (1929)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fridovich v. Fridovich
He first noted Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538 , 123 So. 916 (Fla. 1929), which held that an absolute privilege extends to all judges, parties, counsel and witnesses "and arises immediately upon the doing of any act required or permitted by law in the due course of the judicial proceeding or as necessarily preliminary thereto." Ange, 123 So. at 917 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited "see"
Fullerton v. FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
See Ange v. State, 123 So. 916, 917 (Fla. 1929); Stucchio v. Tincher, 726 So. 2d 372, 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Fullerton v. FLORIDA MEDICAL ASS'N, INC.
See Ange v. State, 98 Fla. 538 , 123 So. 916 , 917 (1929); Stucchio v. Tincher, 726 So.2d 372, 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
L. F. Smith, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
State of Florida, Defendant in Error
v.
State of Florida, Defendant in Error
W. T. Bludworth, for Plaintiff in Error;
Fred H. Davis, Attorney General, and Roy Campbell, Assistant, for the State.
Buford, Whitfield, Strum, Terrell, Ellis, Brown.
Published
Buford, J.
In this case the defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Holmes county of the offense' of unlawfully having intoxicating liquor in his possession. The indictment charged the second offense.
There are seven (7) assignments of error. The first is based upon the action of the court in denying the defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment. There is no tenable ground stated in the motion in arrest of judgment and, therefore, it is property denied.
[*483] The second assignment of error is based on the action of the court in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The record shows upon its face that all the evidence submitted to the jury was not included in the bill of exceptions. Therefore, this Court is not advised as to what was before the circuit court and can not say that error was committed in denying the motion for a new trial.
The third assignment of error is that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. The observation made as to the condition of the record when referring to assignment No. 2 applies to this assignment.
The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh assignments of error apply to the ruling of the court as to documents, matters and things offered in evidence which are not shown by the bill of exceptions, nor by the transcript, and, therefore, cannot be considered.
The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.