Legal Opinion
Grodjesk v. Faghani
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided October 2, 1986PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
POLLOCK, J.
This appeal presents the question whether the informer’s privilege precludes the disclosure of the identity of a complain ant to a professional disciplinary board. In this case, someone informed the New Jersey Board of Dentistry (Board) that plaintiffs, Dr. Joseph B. Grodjesk and Dr. Herbert B. Dolinsky, had violated Board regulations. The Board dismissed the complaint, and plaintiffs, believing defendant, Theresa Faghani, to be the complainant, filed a malicious-prosecution action against her. Faghani denies that she was the informer.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Roviaro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Vogel v. GruazSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- State v. BurnettSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1964
- Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. City of Burlington, VermontCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965
- State v. BrileySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1969
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State v. GallagherNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1994
- Venuto v. Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi & Stewart, P.C.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- State v. GarciaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1993
- Commonwealth v. KauffmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- State v. RibaltaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1994
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.