Piplack v. Mueller
Supreme Court of Florida
1Opinion of the CourtEllis, J.
This was an action in damages for defamation of character. On a plea of not guilty there was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,300.00. A motion for a new trial was granted to which order the plaintiff took a writ of error.
The declaration states a cause of action based upon words used by the defendant and applied to the plaintiff which were defamatory in character. Some of the words were actionable per se; others were actionable per quod. That is to say, some of the words upon their face and without the aid of intrinsic proof were injurious; they were defamatory peí’ se. Other words…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Briggs v. BrownSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
- The St. Joze IndianoSupreme Court of the United States · 1816
- Henicke v. GriffithSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- Sabin v. AngellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874
3Cited by12 opinions
- Richard v. GraySupreme Court of Florida · 1953
- Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
- Diplomat Electric, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Supply Company, a Division of Westinghouse Electric CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
- Hooper-Holmes Bureau, Inc. v. BunnCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1947
- Shaw v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.District Court, M.D. Florida · 1993
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.