Legal Opinion
Gagan v. Yast
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided April 5, 2012No. 45A05-1107-CT-377PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BAKER, Judge.
Today we decide that the appellee-de-fendant attorney’s alleged defamatory statements that he made against his former clients, the appellants-plaintiffs, were protected on the grounds of qualified privilege.
Appellants-plaintiffs James Gagan, Fred Wittlinger, Jack Allen, and Eugene Deutsch (collectively, Gagan) appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee-defendant C. Joseph Yast, on their claim against Yast for defamation. Specifically, Gagan argues that the trial court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that the alleged defamatory…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Williams v. TharpIndiana Supreme Court · 2009
- Rosi v. Business Furniture Corp.Indiana Supreme Court · 1993
- Rice v. StrunkIndiana Supreme Court · 1996
- Schrader v. Eli Lilly and Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1994
- Bals v. VerduzcoIndiana Supreme Court · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Peniel Group, Inc. v. BannonIndiana Court of Appeals · 2012
- Alyse McGlaughlin and Connie Kleiner v. Jennifer M. McGlaughlin, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., and Roger McGlaughlinIndiana Court of Appeals · 2013
- The Peniel Group, Inc. and Beech Grove Holdings, LLC v. Elizabeth Bannon, Kenneth G. Schaefer, Linda A. Schaefer, Norma Thinnes, Betty Benefiel, Janet Beeler, Charles Dodson and Beth DodsonIndiana Court of Appeals · 2012
- Trivest Partnership, L.P. v. James Gagan, Fred Wittlinger, Jack Allen and Eugene DeutschIndiana Court of Appeals · 2013