# Rainier's Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc.

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · October 31, 1955 · 19 N.J. 552

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648463

## Case

- **Full name:** Rainier’s Dairies, a Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc., a Corporation, Joseph S. Frelinghuysen, Walter Weinrich, Gladys Reed, Emily B. Frelinghuysen, Emily L. Frelinghuysen, and Harry M. Seals, Raritan Valley Farms Producers Association, an Unincorporated Association, Joseph W. Hoffman, Peter P. Van Nuys, and Vincent K. Flannery, Defendants-Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** October 31, 1955
- **Citations:** 19 N.J. 552; 117 A.2d 889; 1955 N.J. LEXIS 224
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wachenfeld
- **Judges:** Jacobs, Wachenfeld
- **Cited by:** 169 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/9648463

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that litigation privilege applied where action arose out of administrative hearing which “was actually conducted in manner and with safeguards similar to a judicial proceeding”
- explaining that the formal requirements and control inherent in a court proceeding mitigates potential harm
- holding that absolute privilege was a complete defense to malicious interference with business
- recognizing absolute privilege for judges, attorneys, witnesses, parties and jurors for utterances made in course of judicial proceedings

## Opinion text

Wachenfeld, J.
(dissenting). I am to reverse and to remand but on broader grounds than embraced by the majority.
*567 As stated in the majority opinion, the law of defamation imposes broad liability for the publication of false matters which tend to injure the reputation of others and it embodies the important public policy that individuals and businesses should generally be free to enjoy their reputation unimpaired by false and defamatory attacks. But the majority conclude in the instant case there was an absolute privilege and immunity.
It is true that administrative agencies are now a vital part of American life and perform important public duties, but in my opinion it is not yet part of the American way of life that one may falsely and with malice aforethought be permitted to slander and libel another and then successfully claim absolute immunity for his acts.
I would not create another forum where such practice is tolerated and the offender shielded as suggested by the majority.
My conclusion is that the privilege in the case sub judice is qualified rather than absolute, as defined in Finkelstein v. Geismar, 91 N. J. L. 46 (Sup. Ct. 1917), and I would sustain the complaint in its present form.
For remandment—Chief Justice Vandekbilt, and Justices Hehek, Oliphant, Bukling, Jacobs and Bbennan—6.
For reversal—-Justice Wacheneeld—1.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648463. Public record. Not legal advice.