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

nd to which causes of 23 action the litigation privilege would apply. 24 The seminal case now for us, I guess, now 25 is Levin. This was Levin, Mabie suing. It was www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606520 12 1 actually a tortious interference case. But the 2 case went up to the Fl

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

ne how far and to which causes of action the litigation privilege would apply. The seminal case now for us, I guess, now is Levin. This was Levin, Mabie suing. It was www.phippareporting.com 888 811-3408 001221 EFTA00613518 12 1 actually a tortious interference case. But the 2 case went up t

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

ious behavior, suéh as tortious interference with business relationship, so long as act has some relationship to proceeding, See Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So, 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). The immunity afforded to statements made during the course of a ju