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.
11 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oesterle v. Wallacegreen2 sentences2023“The purpose of absolute immunity under the judicial proceedings privilege, as it applies to attorneys, is to promote the public policy ‘of securing to attorneys as officers of the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients.’ ” Oesterle v Wallace, 272 Mich App 260, 265 ; 725 NW2d 470 (2006), quoting 3 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 586, comment a, p 247. 2020Under the judicial-proceedings privilege, “[s]tatements made by judges, attorneys, and witnesses during the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged if they are relevant, material, or pertinent to the issue being tried.” Oesterle, 272 Mich App at 264 . | 1 | 4 |
Lawrence v. Burdigreen2 sentences2021See Lawrence v Burdi, 314 Mich App 203, 217-220 ; 886 NW2d 748 (2016) (holding that a defamatory copy of the contract to his complaint or otherwise allege that he did not have access to or possession of a copy of the contract. -5- request to admit concerning the plaintiff’s ability to take the bar exam was not relevant to the easement dispute in the first action and so the judicial proceedings privilege did not apply). 2021See Lawrence v Burdi, 314 Mich App 203, 217-220 ; 886 NW2d 748 (2016) (holding that a defamatory copy of the contract to his complaint or otherwise allege that he did not have access to or possession of a copy of the contract. -5- request to admit concerning the plaintiff’s ability to take the bar exam was not relevant to the easement dispute in the first action and so the judicial proceedings privilege did not apply). | 1 | 2 |
Timmis v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2016See Timmis v Bennett, 352 Mich 355, 365 ; 89 NW2d 748 (1958). 2016See Timmis v Bennett, 352 Mich 355, 365 ; 89 NW2d 748 (1958). | 1 | 2 |
Denhof v. Challagreen2 sentences2021See Denhof v Challa, 311 Mich App 499, 519 ; 876 NW2d 266 (2015). 2021See Denhof v Challa, 311 Mich App 499, 519 ; 876 NW2d 266 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. COOK CHEVROLET-PONTIAC-OLDSMOBILE-BUICK, INC.
green
2 sentences2023“The purpose of absolute immunity under the judicial proceedings privilege, as it applies to attorneys, is to promote the public policy ‘of securing to attorneys as officers of the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients.’ ” Oesterle v Wallace, 272 Mich App 260, 265 ; 725 NW2d 470 (2006), quoting 3 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 586, comment a, p 247. 2016The trial court correctly ruled that the filing of the federal complaint was not actionable because of the judicial proceedings privilege.4 See, generally, id. at 264 . | 2 | 2016–2023 |
Sanders v. Leeson Air Conditioning Corp.
green
2 sentences2016“What a litigant considers to be pertinent or relevant is given much freedom, and the privilege is liberally construed as a matter of public policy ‘so that participants in judicial proceedings may have relative freedom to express themselves without fear of retaliation.’ ” Lawrence v Burdi, __ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2016) (Docket No. 322041); slip op at 7, quoting Sanders v Leeson Air Conditioning Corp, 362 Mich 692, 695 ; 108 NW2d 761 (1961). 2016“What a litigant considers to be pertinent or relevant is given much freedom, and the privilege is liberally construed as a matter of public policy ‘so that participants in judicial proceedings may have relative freedom to express themselves without fear of retaliation.’ ” Lawrence v Burdi, __ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2016) (Docket No. 322041); slip op at 7, quoting Sanders v Leeson Air Conditioning Corp, 362 Mich 692, 695 ; 108 NW2d 761 (1961). | 2 | 1992–2016 |
Simpson v. Burton
green
2 sentences2024Id., citing Simpson v Burton, 328 Mich 557, 562 ; 44 NW2d 178 (1950). 2024Id., citing Simpson v Burton, 328 Mich 557, 562 ; 44 NW2d 178 (1950). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Eddington v. Torrez
green
1 sentence2024Id., citing Simpson v Burton, 328 Mich 557, 562 ; 44 NW2d 178 (1950). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Mino v. Clio School District
green
1 sentence2021In this case, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition because it found “as a matter of law that the statements by [d]efendant Sweeney are immune under the judicial proceedings privilege.” Looking to the parties’ arguments on appeal, the issue in this case focuses exclusively on element two—whether defendants’ statements in the motions to compel qualified as “unprivileged publication to a third party.” Id. at 72 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Couch v. Schultz
green
1 sentence2006In Couch, supra at 295 , this Court stated that “[t]he judicial proceedings privilege should be liberally construed so that participants in judicial proceedings are free to express themselves without fear of retaliation.” This Court demonstrated an expansive view of the scope of the privilege by concluding that it extends to a statement in a prison misconduct report made in connection with a prison disciplinary hearing. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Meyer v. Hubbell
green
1 sentence1992Sanders, supra at 695 ; Meyer, supra at 709 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co.
green
2 sentences1986The privilege rests upon the idea that any member of the public, if he were present, might see and hear for himself, so that the reporter is merely a substitute for the public eye โ this, together with the obvious public interest in having public affairs made known to all. [Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), ง 115, p 836.] In Phillips v Evening Star Newspaper Co, 424 A2d 78 (DC App, 1980), cert den 451 US 989 (1981), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, applying the privilege to report official actions or proceedings as enunciated in ง 611 of the Restatement, held that it did not apply 1986The privilege rests upon the idea that any member of the public, if he were present, might see and hear for himself, so that the reporter is merely a substitute for the public eye — this, together with the obvious public interest in having public affairs made known to all. [Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 115, p 836.] In Phillips v Evening Star Newspaper Co, 424 A2d 78 (DC App, 1980), cert den 451 US 989 (1981), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, applying the privilege to report official actions or proceedings as enunciated in § 611 of the Restatement, held that it did not apply to | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Harris v. United States
green
2 sentences1986The privilege rests upon the idea that any member of the public, if he were present, might see and hear for himself, so that the reporter is merely a substitute for the public eye โ this, together with the obvious public interest in having public affairs made known to all. [Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), ง 115, p 836.] In Phillips v Evening Star Newspaper Co, 424 A2d 78 (DC App, 1980), cert den 451 US 989 (1981), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, applying the privilege to report official actions or proceedings as enunciated in ง 611 of the Restatement, held that it did not apply 1986The privilege rests upon the idea that any member of the public, if he were present, might see and hear for himself, so that the reporter is merely a substitute for the public eye — this, together with the obvious public interest in having public affairs made known to all. [Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 115, p 836.] In Phillips v Evening Star Newspaper Co, 424 A2d 78 (DC App, 1980), cert den 451 US 989 (1981), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, applying the privilege to report official actions or proceedings as enunciated in § 611 of the Restatement, held that it did not apply to | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.