Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lent v. Huntoongreen2 sentences2020“A showing of malice, however, may defeat the conditional privilege.” Lent v. Huntoon, 143 Vt. 539, 549 (1983), cited in Crump, 154 Vt. at 292 . 2014A conditional privilege is overcome by a showing of one of two forms of malice: (1) “‘conduct manifesting personal ill will, reckless or wanton disregard of plaintiffs rights, or carried out under circumstances evidencing insult or oppression’ ” or (2) “ ‘knowledge of the statement’s falsity or with reckless disregard of its truth.’ ” Crump, 154 Vt. at 293 , 576 A.2d at 447 (quoting Lent, 143 Vt. at 549-50 , 470 A.2d at 1169-70 ). ¶ 12. | 2 | 3 |
Crump v. P & C Food Markets, Inc.green2 sentences2020“A showing of malice, however, may defeat the conditional privilege.” Lent v. Huntoon, 143 Vt. 539, 549 (1983), cited in Crump, 154 Vt. at 292 . 2014A conditional privilege is overcome by a showing of one of two forms of malice: (1) “‘conduct manifesting personal ill will, reckless or wanton disregard of plaintiffs rights, or carried out under circumstances evidencing insult or oppression’ ” or (2) “ ‘knowledge of the statement’s falsity or with reckless disregard of its truth.’ ” Crump, 154 Vt. at 293 , 576 A.2d at 447 (quoting Lent, 143 Vt. at 549-50 , 470 A.2d at 1169-70 ). ¶ 12. | 1 | 2 |
Burke v. Town of Walpolegreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., Burke v. Town of Walpole, 405 F.3d 66, 95 (1st Cir. 2005) (noting that “several jurisdictions have recognized, either by statute or by judicial decision, a conditional privilege for statements made by the police to members of the press or the public”); Lanier v. Higgins, 623 S.W.2d 914, 916 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981) (police chief interviewed by television station “was not clothed with an absolute privilege but rather with a special or conditional privilege”); Trentecosta v. Beck, 703 So. 2d 552, 564 (La. 1997) (qualified privilege for “fair reporting of investigations or arrest” may be “a | 1 | 1 |
Trentecosta v. Beckgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., Burke v. Town of Walpole, 405 F.3d 66, 95 (1st Cir. 2005) (noting that “several jurisdictions have recognized, either by statute or by judicial decision, a conditional privilege for statements made by the police to members of the press or the public”); Lanier v. Higgins, 623 S.W.2d 914, 916 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981) (police chief interviewed by television station “was not clothed with an absolute privilege but rather with a special or conditional privilege”); Trentecosta v. Beck, 703 So. 2d 552, 564 (La. 1997) (qualified privilege for “fair reporting of investigations or arrest” may be “a | 1 | 1 |
Lanier v. Higginsgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., Burke v. Town of Walpole, 405 F.3d 66, 95 (1st Cir. 2005) (noting that “several jurisdictions have recognized, either by statute or by judicial decision, a conditional privilege for statements made by the police to members of the press or the public”); Lanier v. Higgins, 623 S.W.2d 914, 916 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981) (police chief interviewed by television station “was not clothed with an absolute privilege but rather with a special or conditional privilege”); Trentecosta v. Beck, 703 So. 2d 552, 564 (La. 1997) (qualified privilege for “fair reporting of investigations or arrest” may be “a | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. City of Mitchellgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., Burke v. Town of Walpole, 405 F.3d 66, 95 (1st Cir. 2005) (noting that “several jurisdictions have recognized, either by statute or by judicial decision, a conditional privilege for statements made by the police to members of the press or the public”); Lanier v. Higgins, 623 S.W.2d 914, 916 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981) (police chief interviewed by television station “was not clothed with an absolute privilege but rather with a special or conditional privilege”); Trentecosta v. Beck, 703 So. 2d 552, 564 (La. 1997) (qualified privilege for “fair reporting of investigations or arrest” may be “a | 1 | 1 |
Skaskiw and Vermont Volunteer Services for Animals Humane Societygreen2 sentences2026“An arrest by an officer is an official action, and a report of the fact of the arrest or of the charge of crime made by the officer in making or returning the arrest is therefore within the conditional privilege covered by this Section.” Id. § 611, cmt. h.; see also Skaskiw, 2014 VT 133, ¶ 9 (noting the Court “frequently ha[s] adopted provisions of the Restatement (Second) of Torts with respect to defamation”). 2026A “conditional privilege is abused, and becomes ineffective, if the defendant acted with malice.” Skaskiw, 2014 VT 133, ¶ 11 . | 1 | 1 |
Stone v. Banner Publishing Corp.green1 sentence1990As we have recently noted, Ryan v. Herald Association, Inc., 152 Vt. 275, 277 , 566 A.2d 1316, 1317-18 (1989), the elements of a defamation action in Vermont are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) some negligence, or greater fault, in publishing the statement; (3) publication to at least one third person; (4) lack of privilege in the publication; (5) special damages, unless actionable per se; and (6) some actual harm so as to warrant compensatory damages. (quoting Lent v. Huntoon, 143 Vt. 539, 546-47 , 470 A.2d 1162, 1168 (1983) (footnote omitted)); see Stone v. Bann | 1 | 1 |
Ryan v. Herald Ass'ngreen2 sentences1990As we have recently noted, Ryan v. Herald Association, Inc., 152 Vt. 275, 277 , 566 A.2d 1316, 1317-18 (1989), the elements of a defamation action in Vermont are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) some negligence, or greater fault, in publishing the statement; (3) publication to at least one third person; (4) lack of privilege in the publication; (5) special damages, unless actionable per se; and (6) some actual harm so as to warrant compensatory damages. (quoting Lent v. Huntoon, 143 Vt. 539, 546-47 , 470 A.2d 1162, 1168 (1983) (footnote omitted)); see Stone v. Bann 1990As we have recently noted, Ryan v. Herald Association, Inc., 152 Vt. 275, 277 , 566 A.2d 1316, 1317-18 (1989), the elements of a defamation action in Vermont are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) some negligence, or greater fault, in publishing the statement; (3) publication to at least one third person; (4) lack of privilege in the publication; (5) special damages, unless actionable per se; and (6) some actual harm so as to warrant compensatory damages. (quoting Lent v. Huntoon, 143 Vt. 539, 546-47 , 470 A.2d 1162, 1168 (1983) (footnote omitted)); see Stone v. Bann | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Foster v. Pearcy
green
1 sentence2012It would be anomalous indeed to hold that the attorney general enjoys an absolute privilege, while the local prosecuting attorneys have only a conditional privilege for the same conduct.” Id. at 449 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990However, we need not establish whether plaintiff must prove merely “some negligence” or a greater degree of fault in a “private” defamation case after Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. at 757-61 , because here, defendant concededly enjoys a conditional privilege for intracorporate communications to protect its legitimate business interests. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.