Legal Opinion

Piplack v. Mueller

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided April 2, 1929PublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

  1. Briggs v. BrownSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
  2. The St. Joze IndianoSupreme Court of the United States · 1816
  3. Henicke v. GriffithSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
  4. Sabin v. AngellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Richard v. GraySupreme Court of Florida · 1953
  2. Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  3. Diplomat Electric, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Supply Company, a Division of Westinghouse Electric CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
  4. Hooper-Holmes Bureau, Inc. v. BunnCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1947
  5. Shaw v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.District Court, M.D. Florida · 1993

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API