State ex rel. Douglas v. Tune
Missouri Court of Appeals
MANDAMUS. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. ’ (1) The Complaint Board has no right to refuse the relator the right to inspect and copy the letter. It contained false charges against him. It is against public policy to make this Board a repository for libelonus letters. (2) (a) The question of privilege is for the defendants in the libel suit, not for the Board of Complaint, (b) In any event such letter is but conditionally privileged. Finley v. Steele, 159 Mo. 305; Newell Lib. and Sian.
Read the full summary
MANDAMUS. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. ’ (1) The Complaint Board has no right to refuse the relator the right to inspect and copy the letter. It contained false charges against him. It is against public policy to make this Board a repository for libelonus letters. (2) (a) The question of privilege is for the defendants in the libel suit, not for the Board of Complaint, (b) In any event such letter is but conditionally privileged. Finley v. Steele, 159 Mo. 305; Newell Lib. and Sian. (2 Ed.), 475; 1 Cooley Torts (3 Ed.), 434. (3) (a) Production of papers under order of court does not constitute an…
1Opinion of the Court
REYNOLDS, F. J.
It is set out in the petition for a writ of mandamus now before us, that by section 2, of article 14, of the Charter of the city of St. Louis, a Complaint Board, consisting of three members, was created, with power in that board to employ a secretary. Setting out the section, it is averred that the respondents Tune, Wallbridge and Cassidy, are such board, and the respondent Marsh, its secretary, and that relator is an employee of the city of St. Louis in *408its streets and sewers department, and that one Lawenee McDaniel and one George E. Thomas, on November 29, 1916, wrote a…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Boske v. ComingoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Worthington v. ScribnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Smart v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Board of Trustees of Michigan Asylum for the InsaneMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Gray v. PentlandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- City of Phoenix v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
- City Council v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Krumin v. BruknesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1930
- Markwell v. SykesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.