Epstein Secrets

d for one second. 21 MR. KING: Yes. 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 MR. RING: And I cited the Taylor case, 24 which was a Supreme Court of Idaho decision, which 25 discusses that issue and which shows that for www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606540 32 1 those very reasons t

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

d for one second. 21 MR. KING: Yes. 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 MR. KING: And I cited the Taylor case, 24 which was a Supreme Court of Idaho decision, which 25 discusses that issue and which shows that for www.phippereporting.com 888 811-3408 001241 EFTA00613538 32 1 those very r

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

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

ution claims against attorneys — against whom alternative remedies exist such as bar disciplinary proceedings. See Taylor v. McNichols, 243 P.2d 642 (Idaho 2010). Moreover, in light of the decisions in Wright v. Yurko, supra and Olson v. Johnson, supra, the weight of authority supports the proposition th