explaining that “judicial privilege provid[es] immunity for communications which are made in the regular course of judicial proceedings and are material to the relief sought,” and that “the declarant’s intent is immaterial even if the statement is false and made with malice”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “judicial privilege provid[es] immunity for communications which are made in the regular course of judicial proceedings and are material to the relief sought,” and that “the declarant’s intent is immaterial even if the statement is false and made with malice”
- holding that “the judicial privilege does not apply to an allegation [concerning a school teacher] made by an adult[, former student,] before commencement of any quasi-judicial proceeding and without an intent that it lead to a quasi-judicial proceeding”
- stating that the privilege is “absolute, meaning that, where it attaches, the declarant’s intent is immaterial even if the statement is false and made with malice.”
- holding that absolute privilege does not extend to statements before commencement of a quasi-judicial proceeding without intent that it lead to one
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice TODD,
concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion. I write separately to emphasize that my position is firmly tied to the peculiar factual circumstances of the instant case. As noted by the majority, Jenna Addis was 26 years old and had been out of high school for more than 7 years when she told Susan O’Bannon that she had a relationship with Robert Schanne while she was a high school student. Had Addis been a student at the time she confided in O’Bannon, I might very well have reached a different result.