# Franson v. Radich

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · April 15, 1987 · 84 Or. App. 715

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560233

## Case

- **Full name:** FRANSON Et Al, Appellants, v. RADICH Et Al, Respondents
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** April 15, 1987
- **Citations:** 84 Or. App. 715; 735 P.2d 632
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Joseph
- **Judges:** Buttler, Joseph, Rossman
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560233

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “ordinarily, absolute privilege is an affirmative defense that must be raised by answer” but that “it may be raised by motion to dismiss if the amended complaint alleges facts which, if true, estab- lish the privilege” and extending that principle to claims of …
- holding that trial court erred in dismissing claim for interference with custody where plaintiff parents alleged that defendants initiated custody proceedings based on the erroneous belief that plaintiffs’ child was suffering from neglect
- applying the attomey/judicial proceeding “absolute privilege” to a claim for IIED

## Opinion text

JOSEPH, C. J.,
concurring.
I must accept both parts of the majority opinion. The part dealing with the claim of custodial interference I accept without reservation. The part dealing with the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress has, I believe, got to be accepted because of the state of the law concerning the absolute privilege accorded statements made in connection with judicial proceedings under Oregon case law.
If the facts alleged by plaintiffs could be proved, they would establish an utterly unconscionable course of officious intermeddling on the part of defendants, for which they ought to be held to account. The absolute privilege came into being when judicial policy encouraged resort to the judicial process for the resolution of disputes. That policy is still one that ought to be accorded paramount status. Today, however, in all too many instances people seek to use the judicial process for abusive purposes. Plaintiffs’ claim alleges facts that would constitute an egregious example of that.
The privilege, or immunity, was judicially created, and it can be judicially amended. I hope that the Supreme Court, if given the opportunity, will engraft a good faith and fair dealing limitation on the privilege, rendering it less than absolute. Whether or not bad cases make bad law, “bad” facts sometimes illuminate the need for law reform.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560233. Public record. Not legal advice.