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.
16 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2024 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 |
|---|---|---|
Surace v. Wuligergreen2 sentences2024See Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus (“under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears”); Dudee, 2019-Ohio-3939 , 133 N.E.3d 590 , at ¶ 84, quoting Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2007-Ohio-2451 , 866 N.E.2d 1051, ¶ 58 (“False light defendants enjoy protections at least as extensive as defamation defenda 2024See Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus (“under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears”); Dudee, 2019-Ohio-3939 , 133 N.E.3d 590 , at ¶ 84, quoting Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2007-Ohio-2451 , 866 N.E.2d 1051, ¶ 58 (“False light defendants enjoy protections at least as extensive as defamation defenda | 4 | 14 |
Savoy v. Univ. of Akrongreen1 sentence2024See Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 (1986), syllabus (“As a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears.”); Savoy v. Univ. of Akron, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-696, 2014-Ohio-3043, ¶ 19 (“[A] statement in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding is absolutely privileged and may not form the basis for a defamation action as lo | 1 | 1 |
Welling v. Weinfeldgreen2 sentences2024See Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus (“under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears”); Dudee, 2019-Ohio-3939 , 133 N.E.3d 590 , at ¶ 84, quoting Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2007-Ohio-2451 , 866 N.E.2d 1051, ¶ 58 (“False light defendants enjoy protections at least as extensive as defamation defenda 2024See Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus (“under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears”); Dudee, 2019-Ohio-3939 , 133 N.E.3d 590 , at ¶ 84, quoting Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2007-Ohio-2451 , 866 N.E.2d 1051, ¶ 58 (“False light defendants enjoy protections at least as extensive as defamation defenda | 1 | 1 |
Lanning v. Christygreen1 sentence2022Co. and adopted the American rule: “As a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause 8 January Term, 2022 of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears,” Surace at syllabus; see also id. at 232-233. | 1 | 1 |
Matikas v. University of Daytongreen2 sentences2021Matikas v. Univ. of Dayton, 152 Ohio App.3d 514 , 2003-Ohio-1852 , 788 N.E.2d 1108, ¶ 27 (2d Dist.). {¶ 80} In Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), the Ohio Supreme Court held: “As a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears.” Id. at syllabus. {¶ 81} As noted in Justice v. Mowery, 69 Ohio App.2d 2021Matikas v. Univ. of Dayton, 152 Ohio App.3d 514 , 2003-Ohio-1852 , 788 N.E.2d 1108, ¶ 27 (2d Dist.). {¶ 80} In Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), the Ohio Supreme Court held: “As a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears.” Id. at syllabus. {¶ 81} As noted in Justice v. Mowery, 69 Ohio App.2d | 1 | 1 |
Kirshner v. Shinaberrygreen2 sentences1996See, also, Kirshner v. Shinaberry (1989), 64 Ohio App.3d 536, 539-540 , 582 N.E.2d 22, 23-24 . 1996See, also, Kirshner v. Shinaberry (1989), 64 Ohio App.3d 536, 539-540 , 582 N.E.2d 22, 23-24 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dudee v. Philpot
green
2 sentences2024See Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus (“under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears”); Dudee, 2019-Ohio-3939 , 133 N.E.3d 590 , at ¶ 84, quoting Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2007-Ohio-2451 , 866 N.E.2d 1051, ¶ 58 (“False light defendants enjoy protections at least as extensive as defamation defenda 2024See Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus (“under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears”); Dudee, 2019-Ohio-3939 , 133 N.E.3d 590 , at ¶ 84, quoting Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2007-Ohio-2451 , 866 N.E.2d 1051, ¶ 58 (“False light defendants enjoy protections at least as extensive as defamation defenda | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Justice v. Mowery
green
2 sentences2021Matikas v. Univ. of Dayton, 152 Ohio App.3d 514 , 2003-Ohio-1852 , 788 N.E.2d 1108, ¶ 27 (2d Dist.). {¶ 80} In Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), the Ohio Supreme Court held: “As a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears.” Id. at syllabus. {¶ 81} As noted in Justice v. Mowery, 69 Ohio App.2d 2021Matikas v. Univ. of Dayton, 152 Ohio App.3d 514 , 2003-Ohio-1852 , 788 N.E.2d 1108, ¶ 27 (2d Dist.). {¶ 80} In Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), the Ohio Supreme Court held: “As a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears.” Id. at syllabus. {¶ 81} As noted in Justice v. Mowery, 69 Ohio App.2d | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Reister v. Gardner (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2021Alternatively termed a “litigation privilege,” that form of protection “provides absolute immunity to parties, witnesses, lawyers, and judges from future lawsuits for statements made during and relevant to judicial proceedings.” (Emphasis sic.) Reister v. Gardner, Ohio Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5484 , __ N.E.3d __ , ¶ 8. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Newman v. Univ. of Dayton
green
1 sentence2021Montgomery No. 28815, 2021-Ohio-1609 , this court stated: As a matter of public policy, the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding protects parties from defamation claims based upon any statement that “bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears.” Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 , 495 N.E.2d 939, 940 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Buehrer v. Provident Mutual Life Ins.
green
2 sentences2016Co., 123 Ohio St. 264, 273 , 175 N.E. 25 (1931); see Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 230 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus (“As a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a 11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears.”). 2016Co., 123 Ohio St. 264, 273 , 175 N.E. 25 (1931); see Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 230 , 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus (“As a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading does not state a 11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears.”). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Erie County Farmers' Ins. v. Crecelius
green
1 sentence1986While we find Erie County and Bigelow to be relatively correct enunciations of the proper standard to be applied in causes asserting absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, we believe that the majority rule articulates a more workable standard for deciding when the doctrine of absolute privilege should apply, while recognizing the public policy considerations referred to in Erie County, supra, at 214-215 . 1 Thus, we hold that as a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written | 1 | 1986–1986 |