Epstein Secrets

ician against his patients and an expert after he successfully defended a malpractice claim. Also of significance is the Second District’s opinion in Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In that case, the court observed that the litigation (or judicial) privilege would not apply to bar a

cause of action for malicious prosecution continues to exist and would not be barred by the litigation privilege.’”’); Boca Investors Group, Inc. v. Potash, 835 So. 2d 273, 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Cope, J., concurring) (litigation privilege would not be a bar to a malicious prosecution action); North Sta

ently exists with regards to the g issue whether the litigation privilege bars a 9 malicious prosecution claim. And I have cited to 10 the case Olson vs. Johnson, 961 Sold. 356, the 11 Second DCA's opinion in 2007, after both Levin and 12 Echevarria. And it holds that malicious 13 prosecution

inexplicable about Wolfe, 6 is that it ignores its own prior precedent by 7 Judge Cope in his concurring decision in Boca 8 Investors Group vs. Potash, 835 So2d. 273. 9 THE COURT: That was a concurring opinion? 10 MR. KING: Yes, that was his concurring 11 opinion. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 M

ently exists with regards to the 8 issue whether the litigation privilege bars a 9 malicious prosecution claim. And 2 have cited to 10 the case Olson vs. Johnson, 961 So2d. 356, the 11 Second DCA's opinion in 2007, after both Levin and 12 Echevarria. And it holds that malicious 13 prosecution

inexplicable about Wolfe, 6 is that it ignores its own prior precedent by 7 Judge Cope in his concurring decision in Boca 8 Investors Group vs. Potash, 835 So2d. 273. 9 THE COURT: That was a concurring opinion? 10 MR. KING: Yes, that was his concurring 11 opinion. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 MR