14 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hague v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2009As we further emphasized, “special situations may exist where the interest of the public, the patient, the physician, or a third person are of sufficient importance to justify the creation of a conditional or qualified privilege to disclose in the absence of any statutory mandate or common-law duty.” Id., citing Hague v. Williams (1962), 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A.2d 345 ; Berry v. Moench (1958), 8 Utah 2d 191, 197 , 331 P.2d 814 ; Simonsen v Swenson (1920), 104 Neb. 224, 228 , 177 N.W. 831 ; Johnston, Breach of Medical Confidence in Ohio (1986), 19 Akron L.Rev. 373, 384-392; Vickery, Breach of 2009As we further emphasized, “special situations may exist where the interest of the public, the patient, the physician, or a third person are of sufficient importance to justify the creation of a conditional or qualified privilege to disclose in the absence of any statutory mandate or common-law duty.” Id., citing Hague v. Williams (1962), 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A.2d 345 ; Berry v. Moench (1958), 8 Utah 2d 191, 197 , 331 P.2d 814 ; Simonsen v Swenson (1920), 104 Neb. 224, 228 , 177 N.W. 831 ; Johnston, Breach of Medical Confidence in Ohio (1986), 19 Akron L.Rev. 373, 384-392; Vickery, Breach of | 2 | 3 |
Hahn v. Kottengreen2 sentences2021"If a claimant establishes a prima facie case of defamation, a defendant may then invoke a conditional or qualified privilege." Jackson at ¶ 9, citing A & B-Abell at 7, citing Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237, 243 (1975). {¶ 17} "A qualified privilege is an affirmative defense to a claim of defamation." Morrison v. Gugle, 142 Ohio App.3d 244, 258 (10th Dist.2001), citing Cooper v. Baptist Church of Columbus, Ohio, Inc., 81 Ohio App.3d 728, 734 (10th Dist.1992), citing Hahn at 243 . 2008In Hahn v. Kotten (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 237 , the court explained the nature of communications that are subject to a conditional or qualified privilege, as follows: "A publication is conditionally or qualifiedly privileged where circumstances exist, or are reasonably believed by the defendant to exist, which cast on him the duty of making a communication to a certain other person to whom he makes such communication in the performance of such duty, or where the person is so situated that it becomes right in the interests of society that he should tell third persons certain facts, which he in go | 1 | 5 |
Anderson v. WBNS-TV, Inc.green1 sentence2025“A person properly classified as a public official or a public figure may recover for defamation only on clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice – that is, with knowledge that the defamatory statement was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not.” Anderson v. WBNS-TV, Inc., 2024-Ohio-4880, ¶ 30 (10th Dist.). {¶ 26} If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the defendant may then invoke a conditional or qualified privilege. | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Grace Baptist Church of Columbus, Ohio, Inc.green1 sentence2021"If a claimant establishes a prima facie case of defamation, a defendant may then invoke a conditional or qualified privilege." Jackson at ¶ 9, citing A & B-Abell at 7, citing Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237, 243 (1975). {¶ 17} "A qualified privilege is an affirmative defense to a claim of defamation." Morrison v. Gugle, 142 Ohio App.3d 244, 258 (10th Dist.2001), citing Cooper v. Baptist Church of Columbus, Ohio, Inc., 81 Ohio App.3d 728, 734 (10th Dist.1992), citing Hahn at 243 . | 1 | 1 |
Morrison v. Guglegreen1 sentence2021"If a claimant establishes a prima facie case of defamation, a defendant may then invoke a conditional or qualified privilege." Jackson at ¶ 9, citing A & B-Abell at 7, citing Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237, 243 (1975). {¶ 17} "A qualified privilege is an affirmative defense to a claim of defamation." Morrison v. Gugle, 142 Ohio App.3d 244, 258 (10th Dist.2001), citing Cooper v. Baptist Church of Columbus, Ohio, Inc., 81 Ohio App.3d 728, 734 (10th Dist.1992), citing Hahn at 243 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Simonsen v. Swenson
green
2 sentences2009As we further emphasized, “special situations may exist where the interest of the public, the patient, the physician, or a third person are of sufficient importance to justify the creation of a conditional or qualified privilege to disclose in the absence of any statutory mandate or common-law duty.” Id., citing Hague v. Williams (1962), 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A.2d 345 ; Berry v. Moench (1958), 8 Utah 2d 191, 197 , 331 P.2d 814 ; Simonsen v Swenson (1920), 104 Neb. 224, 228 , 177 N.W. 831 ; Johnston, Breach of Medical Confidence in Ohio (1986), 19 Akron L.Rev. 373, 384-392; Vickery, Breach of 2009As we further emphasized, “special situations may exist where the interest of the public, the patient, the physician, or a third person are of sufficient importance to justify the creation of a conditional or qualified privilege to disclose in the absence of any statutory mandate or common-law duty.” Id., citing Hague v. Williams (1962), 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A.2d 345 ; Berry v. Moench (1958), 8 Utah 2d 191, 197 , 331 P.2d 814 ; Simonsen v Swenson (1920), 104 Neb. 224, 228 , 177 N.W. 831 ; Johnston, Breach of Medical Confidence in Ohio (1986), 19 Akron L.Rev. 373, 384-392; Vickery, Breach of | 3 | 1999–2009 |
Berry v. Moench
green
2 sentences2009As we further emphasized, “special situations may exist where the interest of the public, the patient, the physician, or a third person are of sufficient importance to justify the creation of a conditional or qualified privilege to disclose in the absence of any statutory mandate or common-law duty.” Id., citing Hague v. Williams (1962), 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A.2d 345 ; Berry v. Moench (1958), 8 Utah 2d 191, 197 , 331 P.2d 814 ; Simonsen v Swenson (1920), 104 Neb. 224, 228 , 177 N.W. 831 ; Johnston, Breach of Medical Confidence in Ohio (1986), 19 Akron L.Rev. 373, 384-392; Vickery, Breach of 2009As we further emphasized, “special situations may exist where the interest of the public, the patient, the physician, or a third person are of sufficient importance to justify the creation of a conditional or qualified privilege to disclose in the absence of any statutory mandate or common-law duty.” Id., citing Hague v. Williams (1962), 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A.2d 345 ; Berry v. Moench (1958), 8 Utah 2d 191, 197 , 331 P.2d 814 ; Simonsen v Swenson (1920), 104 Neb. 224, 228 , 177 N.W. 831 ; Johnston, Breach of Medical Confidence in Ohio (1986), 19 Akron L.Rev. 373, 384-392; Vickery, Breach of | 3 | 1999–2009 |
Jackson v. City of Columbus
green
2 sentences2024Jackson v. Columbus, 117 Ohio St.3d 328, 331 , 2008-Ohio-1041 , ¶ 9, citing A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. 2011Jackson v. Columbus, 117 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2008-Ohio-1041 , 883 N.E.2d 1060 , ¶9, citing A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. | 2 | 2011–2024 |
Jacobs v. Frank
green
2 sentences2021“In a case where it is found that a conditional or qualified privilege does exist, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defamatory statements were made with ‘actual malice.’” Lakota at 647-648, citing Jacobs v. Frank, 60 Ohio St.3d 111 , 573 N.E.2d 609 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. 2021“In a case where it is found that a conditional or qualified privilege does exist, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defamatory statements were made with ‘actual malice.’” Lakota at 647-648, citing Jacobs v. Frank, 60 Ohio St.3d 111 , 573 N.E.2d 609 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. | 2 | 1996–2021 |
MacDonald v. Clinger
green
2 sentences2020Id. “[S]pecial situations may exist where the interest of the public, the patient, the physician, or a third person are of sufficient importance to justify the creation of a conditional or qualified privilege to disclose in the absence of any statutory mandate or common-law duty.” Id. 2020Id. “[S]pecial situations may exist where the interest of the public, the patient, the physician, or a third person are of sufficient importance to justify the creation of a conditional or qualified privilege to disclose in the absence of any statutory mandate or common-law duty.” Id. | 2 | 2009–2020 |
A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Central Ohio Building & Construction Trades Council
green
2 sentences2008A & B-Abell, 73 Ohio St.3d at 7 , 651 N.E.2d 1283 , citing Hahn, 43 Ohio St.2d at 243 , 72 O.O.2d 134 , 331 N.E.2d 713 . 2001A B-Abell, supra, at 8 , quoting Hahn, supra, at 719 . | 2 | 2001–2008 |
Costaras v. Dunnerstick, Unpublished Decision (11-24-2004)
neutral
1 sentence2011No. 04CA008453, 2004-Ohio-6266 . {¶19} If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of defamation, the defendant may then invoke a conditional or qualified privilege. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Biddle v. Warren General Hospital
green
2 sentences2009As we further emphasized, “special situations may exist where the interest of the public, the patient, the physician, or a third person are of sufficient importance to justify the creation of a conditional or qualified privilege to disclose in the absence of any statutory mandate or common-law duty.” Id., citing Hague v. Williams (1962), 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A.2d 345 ; Berry v. Moench (1958), 8 Utah 2d 191, 197 , 331 P.2d 814 ; Simonsen v Swenson (1920), 104 Neb. 224, 228 , 177 N.W. 831 ; Johnston, Breach of Medical Confidence in Ohio (1986), 19 Akron L.Rev. 373, 384-392; Vickery, Breach of 2009As we further emphasized, “special situations may exist where the interest of the public, the patient, the physician, or a third person are of sufficient importance to justify the creation of a conditional or qualified privilege to disclose in the absence of any statutory mandate or common-law duty.” Id., citing Hague v. Williams (1962), 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A.2d 345 ; Berry v. Moench (1958), 8 Utah 2d 191, 197 , 331 P.2d 814 ; Simonsen v. Swenson (1920), 104 Neb. 224, 228 , 177 N.W. 831 ; Johnston, Breach of Medical Confidence in Ohio (1986), 19 Akron L.Rev. 373, 384-392; Vickery, Breach of | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.