Legal Opinion

Dineen v. Daughan

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided January 17, 1978PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POMEROY, JUSTICE.

Both the appellant and appellee are attorneys who represented opposing parties in a prior judicial proceeding. Statements concerning the conduct of the appellant were made by the appellee in a motion filed in such proceeding. It is these statements which appellant Dineen considers libelous. This action was initiated to vindicate such claim.

The Superior Court found that the statements were made as part of a judicial proceeding and were relevant to said proceeding. That court concluded that the appel-lee’s action was “absolutely privileged and not actionable.” Accordingly, the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. CRIBERG v. RaymondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  2. Barnes v. McCrateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1851
  3. Dunbar v. GreenlawSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1956
  4. Garing v. FraserSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1884

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. McGranahan v. DaharSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
  2. Lester v. PowersSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1991
  3. Penobscot Indian Nation v. Key Bank of MaineCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
  4. Ziehm v. ZiehmSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
  5. Vahlsing Christina Corp. v. StanleySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1985

17 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