Opinion

Glickman v. Potamkin

454 So. 2d 612 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 3, 1984

Full text

454 So.2d 612 (1984) Bob GLICKMAN a/K/a Bob Glick, Appellant, v. Alan POTAMKIN, Appellee. No. 83-2858. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. July 3, 1984. Rehearing Denied September 7, 1984. *613 Frederick C. Sake, Miami, for appellant. Paige & Catlin and William M. Tuttle, II, Miami, for appellee. Before HUBBART, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ. BASKIN, Judge. In a defamation action, the affirmative defenses of truth, good motive and qualified privilege present factual questions for resolution by the jury. See Curtis Publishing Co. v. Fraser, 209 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.1954); Lewis v. Evans, 406 So.2d 489 (Fla.2d DCA 1981); Drennen v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 328 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Because appellant asserted these defenses, we find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1966). Reversed and remanded.

Lipsig v. Ramlawi

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 29, 2000

Knepper v. Genstar Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 1988

McCurdy v. Collis

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 11, 1987

Schreidell v. Shoter

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 2, 1986

Kuczkir v. Martell

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 31, 1985

Parentheticals

stating that the affirmative defense of qualified privilege presents a factual question for resolution by the jury
Roberts v. Benson
reversing summary judgment in a defamation action because the defense of truth presents a question of fact to be determined by the jury
JAMES W. YOUNG, JR. v. MARY STRUNK KOPCHAK
in a defamation action, the affirmative defenses of truth, good motive and qualified privilege present factual questions for resolution by the jury
Schreidell v. Shoter
in a defamation action, the affirmative defenses of truth, good motive, and qualified privilege present factual questions for resolution by the jury
Knepper v. Genstar Corp.
“[T]he affirmative defenses of truth, good motive and qualified privilege present factual questions for resolution by the jury.”
Bobcat North America, LLC v. Inland Waste Holdings, LLC
“In a defamation action, the affirmative defenses of truth, good motive and qualified privilege present factual questions for resolution by the jury.”
Roberts v. Benson
“In a defamation action, the affirmative defense[] of . . . qual- ified privilege present[s] factual questions for resolution by the jury.”
Kimberly Grippa v. Ronald Rubin
summary judgment not proper where issue of `truth' presented factual question for jury
Lipsig v. Ramlawi