MacLarty v. Whiteford, 70--599
| Citation | 30 Colo.App. 378,496 P.2d 1071 |
| Decision Date | 11 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--599,70--599 |
| Parties | Jay Hector MacLARTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William K. WHITEFORD, Jr., Defendant-Appellee. . I |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Williams, Trine & Greenstein, William A. Trine, Morris W. Sandstead, Jr., Boulder, for plaintiff-appellant.
Sheldon, Bayer, McLean & Glasman, George M. Allen, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff MacLarty brought this action against the defendant Whiteford seeking damages allegedly resulting from a defamatory letter written by the defendant to the Chief of Police of Estes Park, Colorado. The defendant in his answer alleged that the letter was a privileged communication. Thereafter, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. The trial court, upon the basis of the pleadings and statements of counsel, found in substance that at the time the letter was written plaintiff was seeking a liquor license from the Town of Estes Park; that the Chief of Police of Estes Park was making inquiries on behalf of the Estes Park City Council in connection with plaintiff's application for a liquor license; and that the letter in question was written by the defendant in direct response to one of these inquiries. The trial court concluded that the letter in question, although libelous Per se, was an absolutely privileged communication and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff then filed this appeal.
The factual basis of the trial court's judgment is not questioned on appeal. The issue is whether the court erred in ruling that the defamatory letter written by defendant was an absolutely privileged communication.
The general rule is that communications made in the course of judicial proceedings, even though they are made maliciously and with knowledge of their falsity, are absolutely privileged if they bear a reasonable relationship to the subject of inquiry. 50 Am.Jur.2d Libel and Slander § 231 states:
'The reason underlying this doctrine is that public interest in the freedom of expression by participants in judicial proceedings, uninhibited by risk from resultant suits for defamation, is so vital and necessary to the integrity of our judicial system that it must be made paramount to the right of the individual to a legal remedy where he has been wronged thereby.'
This rule of 'absolute privilege' has frequently been extended to communications made to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walters v. Linhof, Civ. A. No. 82-K-1801.
...Proceedings of boards and commissions that are judicial or quasi-judicial in nature are protected. Prosser, Id.; McLarty v. Whiteford, 30 Colo.App. 378, 496 P.2d 1071, 1072, reh. den.; 50 Am.Jur.2d Libel & Slander, § 231. To hold otherwise would "chill" First Amendment rights to express an ......
-
Fey v. Washington, Civil Action No. 16-cv-03103-WJM-MEH
...proceedings . . . are absolutely privileged if they bear a reasonable relationship to the subject of the inquiry." MacLarty v. Whiteford, 496 P.2d 1071, 1072 (Colo. App. 1972) (holding that statements in a letter to the state liquor licensing authority were absolutely privileged under Color......
-
Dorr v. C.B. Johnson, Inc., 82CA0723
...to the Workmen's Compensation Act were absolutely privileged communications. See Lininger v. Knight, supra; MacLarty v. Whiteford, 30 Colo.App. 378, 496 P.2d 1071 (1972). However, he contends that the privilege does not extend to defamatory statements concerning him published by defendants ......
-
Beyer Laser Ctr., LLC v. Polomsky
...proceedings . . . are absolutely privileged if they bear a reasonable relationship to the subject of the inquiry." MacLarty v. Whiteford, 496 P.2d 1071, 1072 (Colo. App. 1972) (holding that the defendant's statements in a letter to the state liquor licensing authority were absolutely privil......
-
Combating Bad-faith Litigation Tactics With Claims for Abuse of Process
...completely. See, e.g., Harmon v. Fred S. James and Co. of Colorado, Inc., 899 P.2d 258, 262 (Colo.App. 1994). 56. MacLarty v. Whiteford, 496 P.2d 1071, 1072 (Colo.App. 1972). 57. See Buckhannon v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 928 P.2d 1331, 1335 (Colo.App. 1996). 58. Westfield Dev. Co. v......