15 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bird v. W.C.W.green2 sentences2019However, once again, the case deals with libel or slander in a governmental context: “the affirmative defense that the alleged defamatory statements were absolutely privileged under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity.” Id.; see also Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767 , 771–72 (Tex. 1994) (stating that a communication was privileged where the father’s damages were basically defamation). 2019However, once again, the case deals with libel or slander in a governmental context: “the affirmative defense that the alleged defamatory statements were absolutely privileged under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity.” Id.; see also Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767 , 771–72 (Tex. 1994) (stating that a communication was privileged where the father’s damages were basically defamation). | 4 | 4 |
Hernandez v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2023Hernandez v. Hayes, 931 S.W.2d 648, 651-52 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied) (holding statements made during a school board grievance hearing were protected by the quasi- judicial privilege); Vill. of Bayou Vista, 899 S.W.2d at 829-30 (holding statements made during a board meeting were covered by the quasi-judicial privilege); see also Parker v. Holbrook, 647 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (listing cases in which hearings were “deemed quasi-judicial in nature[.]”). 1998See Hernandez v. Hayes, 931 S.W.2d 648 , (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied) (holding that limited statutory immunity in Education Code serves different purpose from that of the quasi-judicial privilege afforded public school employees, and does not protect integrity of process, as does common-law privilege). 3 . | 2 | 2 |
In Re Leegreen2 sentences2019Moreover, as Kyle argues, the Lee case observes: “We know of no Texas case where absolute privilege was asserted as anything other than an 15 affirmative defense to a defamation claim.” In re Lee, 995 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, orig. proceeding).13 With due consideration for the above arguments and authorities, we hold that absolute privilege did not apply, or there was a sound argument against its application under these facts. 2019Moreover, as Kyle argues, the Lee case observes: “We know of no Texas case where absolute privilege was asserted as anything other than an 15 affirmative defense to a defamation claim.” In re Lee, 995 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, orig. proceeding).13 With due consideration for the above arguments and authorities, we hold that absolute privilege did not apply, or there was a sound argument against its application under these facts. | 2 | 2 |
Village of Bayou Vista v. Glaskoxgreen2 sentences2023The quasi-judicial privilege protects statements “made in the course of a quasi-judicial proceeding.” Vill. of Bayou Vista v. Glaskox, 899 S.W.2d 826, 828 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no pet.) (citation omitted). 2023Hernandez v. Hayes, 931 S.W.2d 648, 651-52 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied) (holding statements made during a school board grievance hearing were protected by the quasi- judicial privilege); Vill. of Bayou Vista, 899 S.W.2d at 829-30 (holding statements made during a board meeting were covered by the quasi-judicial privilege); see also Parker v. Holbrook, 647 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (listing cases in which hearings were “deemed quasi-judicial in nature[.]”). | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Holbrookgreen1 sentence2023Hernandez v. Hayes, 931 S.W.2d 648, 651-52 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied) (holding statements made during a school board grievance hearing were protected by the quasi- judicial privilege); Vill. of Bayou Vista, 899 S.W.2d at 829-30 (holding statements made during a board meeting were covered by the quasi-judicial privilege); see also Parker v. Holbrook, 647 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (listing cases in which hearings were “deemed quasi-judicial in nature[.]”). | 1 | 1 |
Perdue, Brackett, Flores, Utt & Burns v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair, Sampson & Meeks, L.L.P.green1 sentence2023See Perdue, Brackett, Flores, Utt & Burns v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair, Sampson & Meeks, L.L.P., 291 S.W.3d 448 , 450–51 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.) (statement made to city council); Zarate v. Cortinas, 553 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1977, no writ) (opin. on reh’g) (statement made to sheriff’s office). | 1 | 1 |
Zarate v. Cortinasgreen1 sentence2023See Perdue, Brackett, Flores, Utt & Burns v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair, Sampson & Meeks, L.L.P., 291 S.W.3d 448 , 450–51 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.) (statement made to city council); Zarate v. Cortinas, 553 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1977, no writ) (opin. on reh’g) (statement made to sheriff’s office). | 1 | 1 |
James v. Browngreen2 sentences2009An absolutely privileged communication is one for which, due to the occasion upon which it was made, no civil remedy exists, even though the communication is false and was made or published with express malice. 5-State Helicopters, Inc. v. Cox, 146 S.W.3d 254, 256 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied); see Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 771-72 (Tex.1994); James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914, 916 (Tex.1982); Reagan v. Guardian Life Ins. 2009An absolutely privileged communication is one for which, due to the occasion upon which it was made, no civil remedy exists, even though the communication is false and was made or published with express malice. 5-State Helicopters, Inc. v. Cox, 146 S.W.3d 254, 256 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied); see Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 771-72 (Tex.1994); James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914, 916 (Tex.1982); Reagan v. Guardian Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
5-State Helicopters, Inc. v. Coxgreen2 sentences2009An absolutely privileged communication is one for which, due to the occasion upon which it was made, no civil remedy exists, even though the communication is false and was made or published with express malice. 5-State Helicopters, Inc. v. Cox, 146 S.W.3d 254, 256 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied); see Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 771-72 (Tex.1994); James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914, 916 (Tex.1982); Reagan v. Guardian Life Ins. 2009An absolutely privileged communication is one for which, due to the occasion upon which it was made, no civil remedy exists, even though the communication is false and was made or published with express malice. 5-State Helicopters, Inc. v. Cox, 146 S.W.3d 254, 256 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied); see Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 771-72 (Tex.1994); James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914, 916 (Tex.1982); Reagan v. Guardian Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Carpenter v. Barnergreen1 sentence1996See Carpenter v. Earner, 797 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex.App.—Waco 1990, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Austin v. Halegreen1 sentence1994Perry, 737 S.W.2d at 110; Austin v. Hale, 711 S.W.2d 64, 66 (Tex.App.—Waco 1986, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Higdongreen2 sentences1994Perry, 737 S.W.2d at 110; Anderson v. Higdon, 695 S.W.2d 320, 324 (Tex.App.—Waco 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 1994Anderson v. Higdon, 695 S.W.2d 320, 324 (Tex.App.—Waco 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citing Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978)). | 1 | 1 |
Robinwood Building & Development Co. v. Pettigrewgreen2 sentences1994Perry, 737 S.W.2d at 110; Anderson v. Higdon, 695 S.W.2d 320, 324 (Tex.App.—Waco 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 1994Perry, 737 S.W.2d at 110; Austin v. Hale, 711 S.W.2d 64, 66 (Tex.App.—Waco 1986, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Forrester v. White
green
2 sentences2003Various state courts have similarly held that arbitrators, acting in their official capacity, possess a quasi-judicial immunity. 3 In support of its argument for a “functional approach” to immunity, Blue Cross cites Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 , 108 S.Ct. 538 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988). 2003Various state courts have similarly held that arbitrators, acting in their official capacity, possess a quasi-judicial immunity. 3 In support of its argument for a “functional approach” to immunity, Blue Cross cites Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 , 108 S.Ct. 538 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988). | 3 | 2003–2003 |
In re Lipsky
green
1 sentence2023Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 593 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commercial Life Insurance Co. v. Texas State Board of Insurance
green
1 sentence2015Co., 808 S.W.2d at 556 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mark K. Patton, M.D., a Single Man v. Lynn Jacob Cox, Wife, and as Independent of the Last Will of Michael D. Cox
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Morales v. Murphey
green
1 sentence1998See Bird, 868 S.W.2d at 772 ; Morales v. Murphey, 908 S.W.2d 504 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995, writ denied) (holding that judicial communication privilege precludes claims for, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation). 4 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Garza v. Smith
green
1 sentence1997Garza, 860 S.W.2d at 634 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Procunier v. Navarette
green
2 sentences1994Anderson v. Higdon, 695 S.W.2d 320, 324 (Tex.App.—Waco 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citing Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978)). 1994Anderson v. Higdon, 695 S.W.2d 320, 324 (Tex.App.—Waco 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citing Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Johnson v. Peterson
green
1 sentence1992Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.