Richards v. Conklin, 575 P.2d 588 (Nev. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Richards v. Conklin, 575 P.2d 588 (Nev. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1999 · …may be understood to pertain to either the doctor's competence or his credibility, and therefore, are privileged. at p. 712 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1999 · …subject to both an absolute and qualified privilege. ✓
18 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Fernandez v. Fernandez (nev, 2014-11-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fernandez v. Fernandez (2×)
Nev. · 2014 · confidence medium
And because respondent's statements to the Psychological Review Panel were made in contemplation of the Parole Board hearing, those statements were likewise absolutely privileged.' See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 588 cmt. e (1977) 'Appellant's reliance on Stockmeier v. Nevada Department of Corrections Psychological Review Panel, 122 Nev. 385 , 135 P.3d 220 continued on next page... 14-37(48 (recognizing that the absolute privilege afforded to statements made in judicial proceedings extends to "communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding. . . when the communication has som…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Sahara Gaming Corp. v. Culinary Workers Union Local 226 (6×) also: Cited "see"
Nev. · 1999 · confidence medium
This court reasoned that the statements “may be understood to pertain to either the doctor’s competence or his credibility, and therefore, are privileged.” Id. at 712, 615 P.2d at 961 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DONNELL RICHARDS, Appellant,
v.
DENNIS B. CONKLIN, JOHN J. DAVIDS, and MICHAEL FRIEDMAN, a Partnership, and MICHAEL FRIEDMAN, DENNIS B. CONKLIN and JOHN J. DAVIDS, as Individuals, and PETER CHASE NEUMANN, Respondents
8753.
Nevada Supreme Court.
Mar 2, 1978.
575 P.2d 588
1978 Nev. LEXIS 484
Donnell Richards, Reno, for Appellant., Wait, Shamberger, Georgeson & McQuaid, Reno,. for Respondents.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

OPINION *

Per Curiam:

Appellant commenced this action for libel after receiving certain letters impunging his professional competence and integrity. Respondents were granted summary judgment, pursuant to NRCP 56, and appellant contends this was error because, he argues, his complaint and affidavit raised genuine issues of material fact. We disagree.

By affidavit, respondents established that they had been retained by two clients formerly represented by appellant for the purpose of: (1) concluding a legal matter which appellant had left unresolved; and, (2) initiating a malpractice suit.

A review of the complaint and affidavit fails to support appellant’s contention. The instruments neither controvert nor refute respondents’ affidavit. Under these circumstances, we are not persuaded summary judgment was erroneous. Nevada Land & Mtge. v. Hidden Wells, 83 Nev. 501, 435 P.2d 198 (1967).

The record supports the district court’s determination that the letters in question were written to protect the interest of respondents’ clients in both a continuing and anticipated judicial proceeding and that the letters were, therefore, subject to both an absolute and qualified privilege. See Romero v. Prince, 513 P.2d 717, 719 (N.M.App. 1973); Restatement (Third) of Torts § 586 (1938). Accordingly, this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed.

It is so ORDERED.

*

This case was disposed of by an unpublished order filed November 22, 1976. Because of the paucity of published authority on the issue we have been requested to publish the order as an opinion.