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.
12 Ohio opinions name it 4 courts 1913–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Worrell v. Multipress, Inc.green2 sentences2024A & B-Abell Elevator Co. at 11. {¶ 35} Whether an allegedly defamatory statement is subject to a qualified privilege is a question of law for the court when, as here, the content of the alleged defamatory statement and the circumstances of the occasion for the communication are not in dispute.3 Id. at 7; Worrell v. Multipress, Inc., 45 Ohio St.3d 241, 248-49 (1989) (“ ‘where the publication is claimed to be privileged the question whether or not the occasion gives the privilege * * * is also for the court’ ” ), quoting Mauk v. Brundage, 68 Ohio St. 89 (1903), 3 “It is only where the content of 2017Ohio Bldg. & Const. , 73 Ohio St.3d 1 , 7, 651 N.E.2d 1283 (1995) citing Worrell v. Multipress, Inc. , 45 Ohio St.3d 241 , 248-249, 543 N.E.2d 1277 (1989). {¶ 99} In this case, the circumstances of the occasion for the alleged defamatory communications were in dispute. | 1 | 5 |
A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Central Ohio Building & Construction Trades Councilgreen2 sentences2013“Where the circumstances of the occasion for the alleged defamatory communications are not in dispute, the determination of whether the occasion gives the privilege is a question of law for the court.” Blantik v. Dennison, 148 Ohio App.3d 494, 505 (11th Dist.2000), citing A & B-Abell Elevator Co., Inc., supra, at 7. 2011“Where the circumstances of the occasion for the alleged defamatory communications are not in dispute, the determination of whether the occasion gives the privilege is a question of law for the court.” A & B- Abell, 73 Ohio St.3d at 7 . | 1 | 4 |
Blatnik v. Avery Dennison Corp.green1 sentence2013“Where the circumstances of the occasion for the alleged defamatory communications are not in dispute, the determination of whether the occasion gives the privilege is a question of law for the court.” Blantik v. Dennison, 148 Ohio App.3d 494, 505 (11th Dist.2000), citing A & B-Abell Elevator Co., Inc., supra, at 7. | 1 | 1 |
Becker v. Toulmingreen1 sentence1995Worrell v. Multipress, Inc. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 241, 248-249 , 543 N.E.2d 1277, 1283 ; Becker v. Toulmin, supra, at 554, 60 O.O. at 505, 138 N.E.2d at 395; Mauk v. Brundage (1903), 68 Ohio St. 89 , 67 N.E. 152 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mauk v. Brundage
green
2 sentences2024A & B-Abell Elevator Co. at 11. {¶ 35} Whether an allegedly defamatory statement is subject to a qualified privilege is a question of law for the court when, as here, the content of the alleged defamatory statement and the circumstances of the occasion for the communication are not in dispute.3 Id. at 7; Worrell v. Multipress, Inc., 45 Ohio St.3d 241, 248-49 (1989) (“ ‘where the publication is claimed to be privileged the question whether or not the occasion gives the privilege * * * is also for the court’ ” ), quoting Mauk v. Brundage, 68 Ohio St. 89 (1903), 3 “It is only where the content of 2021“Whether or not the occasion gives the privilege is a question of law for the court.” Id., quoting Mauk at 97-98 ; see also Modler v. Modler, 2d Dist. | 4 | 1995–2024 |
McCartney v. Oblates of St. Francis De Sales
green
1 sentence2024Francis deSales, 80 Ohio App.3d 345 (6th Dist.1992). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Barilla v. Patella
green
2 sentences2021Barilla v. Patella, 144 Ohio App.3d 524, 534 , 760 N.E.2d 898 (8th Dist.2001). 2021Barilla v. Patella, 144 Ohio App.3d 524, 534 , 760 N.E.2d 898 (8th Dist.2001). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Williams v. P. W. Publishing Co.
green
1 sentence1965Publishing Co., 76 Ohio Law Abs. 404 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Buehrer v. Provident Mutual Life Ins.
green
2 sentences1957Co., 123 Ohio St., 264 , 175 N. E., 25 , which holds, in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus, that when a petition sets forth facts showing privilege a demurrer to it should be sustained, to wit: “While, in an action for libel, the facts disclosing that the statements so made were privileged are ordinarily pleaded as a defense, yet, when the plaintiff himself in his petition sets forth a complete justification of the defendant by way of privilege, as fully as the defendant might have done, no cause of action has been stated justifying recovery; and a general demurrer to such petition should ha 1957Co., 123 Ohio St., 264 , 175 N. E., 25 , which holds, in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus, that when a petition sets forth facts showing privilege a demurrer to it should be sustained, to wit: “While, in an action for libel, the facts disclosing that the statements so made were privileged are ordinarily pleaded as a defense, yet, when the plaintiff himself in his petition sets forth a complete justification of the defendant by way of privilege, as fully as the defendant might have done, no cause of action has been stated justifying recovery; and a general demurrer to such petition should ha | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Hastings v. Lusk
green
1 sentence1913The relevancy of the “landmark” case of Hastings v. Lusk, 22 Wendell, 410 , and other decisions cited in the brief of counsel, and applicability to the facts and circumstances is not apparent. | 1 | 1913–1913 |