Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hartman v. Keri

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 2008No. 02S03-0706-CV-233Published

1ConcurrenceRucker, Justice

I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately to explore a point of departure.

Public policy considerations require that certain defamatory communications be cloaked with an immunity, denominated as an “absolute privilege.” Such communications cannot form the basis for a cause of action. Rather, an absolute privilege bars an action for defamation even when the information was false and maliciously and knowingly published. Hoffman v. Roberto, 578 N.E.2d 701, 710 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). Other communications receive a lesser degree of protection, known as a “qualified privilege.”…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. City of Mishawaka v. StewartIndiana Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Fisher v. LintMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
  3. Thomas v. PetrulisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1984
  4. Van Eaton v. FinkIndiana Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. Lincoln v. BD. OF COM'RS OF TIPPECANOE CTY.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1987

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