231 So. 2d 6 - Hauser v. Urchisin’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 99 Wash. 2d 582 - Bender v. City of Seattle (1983), 702 So. 2d 517 - Stephens v. Geoghegan (1997)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 32 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 184 So. 2d 428 - McNayr v. Kelly · Coogler v. Rhodes · Robertson v. Industrial Insurance Company · Urchisin v. Hauser
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The public interest requires that statements made by officials of all branches of government in connection with their official duties be absolutely privileged.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“It seems to be well settled in this State that words spoken or written by public servants in judicial and legislative activities are protected by absolute privilege from liability for defamation. However false or malicious or badly motivated the accusation may be, no action will lie therefor in this State. Nor is it questioned that such absolute immunity in this State extends to county and municipal officials in legislative or quasi-legislative activities as well as to members of the State Legislature and activities connected with State legislation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. McKinnon · Grady v. Scaffe“"The decisive question is whether the statement by the appellee was made in connection with the performance of his duty and responsibility as a city commissioner. I conclude that it was. Statements by both appellant and appellee were contained in the one newspaper article attached to and incorporated into the complaint. Appellant publicly charged the commission's action in eliminating his office to have been motivated by a vendetta on the part of the appellee, both while appellee served as city judge and later as commissioner. This clarion call to a politically inspired injustice was answered by the one singled out as perpetrator. Could this be construed as anything short of defending both his and the commission's official action, the conduct of which the general public has a right to expect to be above reproach and gilded with utmost honesty and integrity?"”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roberts v. Lenfestey
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.