Sinnett v. Albert, 38079
| Decision Date | 17 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 38079,38079 |
| Parties | John W. SINNETT, Appellant, v. Ronald M. ALBERT and Hie Food Products, Inc., a Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Absolute privilege attaches to defamatory statements made incident to, and in the course of, a judicial proceeding if the defamatory matter has some relation to the proceedings.
2. The rule of absolute privilege is applicable not only to judicial proceedings but to quasi-judicial proceedings as well.
3. The relevancy of the defamatory matter is not a technical legal relevancy but instead a general frame of reference and relationship to the subject matter of the action.
4. There is an absolute privilege to publish false and defamatory matter in a complaint made to the committee on inquiry of the Nebraska State Bar Association regarding the alleged misconduct of an attorney where the defamatory matter has some relation thereto.
5. It is against sound principles of professional ethics for one who knows that he is to be called as a material witness in a case to appear as attorney therein.
Claude D. Shokes, Omaha, Douglas McArthur, Lincoln, for appellant.
William H. Mecham, Omaha, Carl I. Klekers, Ralston, for appellees.
Heard before WHITE, C.J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, NEWTON, and CLINTON, JJ.
This is an action by plaintiff, John W. Sinnett, against defendants, Ronald M. Albert and Hie Food Products, Inc., for damages for libel. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the district court sustained defendants' motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the plaintiff's petition. The critical issue on appeal involves the nature and extent of 'privilege' where the alleged defamation of the plaintiff occurred in connection with proceedings to disbar or discipline an attorney who is not the plaintiff.
It should be noted that in Nebraska, proceedings before a committee on inquiry must be had prior to instituting the judicial procedure for discipline of attorneys. Unless requested by the attorney charged, neither the hearing, records, or proceedings of the committee on inquiry shall be made public nor any publicity be given thereto prior to the filing of a complaint against the attorney in this court. See Rules Creating, Controlling and Regulating the Nebraska State Bar Association, Article XI, paragraphs 10 and 11; and Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Nebraska, Disciplinary Proceedings, paragraphs 10 and 11, p. 32 (November 15, 1971).
The defamatory statement here was a part of a complaint lodged by the individual defendant with a committee on inquiry of the Nebraska State Bar Association against an attorney. The complaint involved the attorney's conduct in connection with a previous lawsuit between the parties involved here. Although the allegedly defamatory statement was never admitted into evidence, it may be inferred that it was an incidental or explanatory part of the complaint against the attorney. The members of the committee on inquiry properly refused to testify as to any of the records or proceedings before the committee.
Although the plaintiff asserts various errors in connection with the exclusion of evidence, we do not reach those matters in view of our determination on the basic issue of privilege.
'The absolute privilege to publish defamatory matter under the circumstances to which the privilege applies is based upon the ground that 'there are certain relations of life in which it is so important that the persons engaged in them should be able to speak freely that the law takes the risk of their abusing the occasion and speaking maliciously as well as untruly, and in order that their duties may be carried on freely and without fear of any action being brought against them, it says: 'We will treat as absolutely privileged any statement made in the performance of these duties. "' Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Or. 383, 347 P.2d 594 (1959). See, also, Restatement, Torts, Introductory Note, Chapter 25, Title B, p. 223.
The absolute privilege attaches to defamatory statements made incident to, and in the course of, a judicial proceeding if the defamatory matter has some relation to the proceedings. Restatement, Torts, ss. 586, 587, and 588, pp. 229 to 234; Annotation, 77 A.L.R.2d 493.
The rule of absolute privilege is applicable not only to judicial proceedings but to quasi-judicial proceedings as well. Shumway v. Warrick, 108 Neb. 652, 189 N.W. 301. As to judicial proceedings, it is not necessary that the defamatory matter be relevant or pertinent to any issue before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGranahan v. Dahar
...made; it makes no difference whether the person allegedly defamed was a participant in those proceedings. See, e. g., Sinnett v. Albert, 188 Neb. 176, 195 N.W.2d 506 (1972); Abbott v. Nat'l Bank of Commerce, 20 Wash. 552, 56 P. 376, Aff'd 175 U.S. 409, 20 S.Ct. 153, 44 L.Ed. 217 (1899). We ......
-
Kocontes v. McQuaid
...merely an interloper, a stranger to the proceedings, and therefore denied the privileges and immunities granted a party litigant."21 In Sinnett v. Albert,22 we held that absolute privilege applied to a complaint to the Nebraska State Bar Association against an attorney by a former client. W......
-
Friedland v. Podhoretz
...complaint are absolutely privileged in a libel action. Wong v. Schoor, 51 Hawaii 608, 466 P.2d 441 (Sup.Ct.1970); Sinnett v. Albert, 188 Neb. 176, 195 N.W.2d 506 (Sup.Ct.1972); Wiener v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330, 292 N.Y.S.2d 667, 239 N.E.2d 540 (Ct.App.1968); Albertson v. Raboff, supra ; P......
-
Pottinger v. Botts
...false or entered with malice, Kentucky's judicial statements privilege is absolute and would still apply. Accord Sinnett v. Albert, 188 Neb. 176, 195 N.W.2d 506 (1972) (judicial statements privilege protects contents of attorney ethics complaint so as to bar subsequent suit against complain......