Epstein Secrets

2 F.Supp.2d 626 (D. N.J. 2011). 9 Watts v. Gerking, 111 Or. 641, 228 P. 135 (1924) 10 Wiggs v. Farmer, 205 Va. 149, 135 S.E.2d 829 (1964) 10 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). 1 Young v. First State Bank, Watonga, 628 P.2d 707 (Okla. 1981). 10 OTHER AUTHORITIES Cal. Civ.

n Ins. Co., 580 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). 5 Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). 1 Fee, Parker & Lloyd, P.A. v. Sullivan, 379 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). . . 6, 7 Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). 2 EFTA00610602 Flynn v. Ok

the Court heard argument solely as to the litigation privilege. 2 EFTA00808206 the litigation privilege based upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Final judgment was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it perta

ether Epstein would have prevailed in his lawsuit is irrelevant to the determination whether there was probable cause to file the lawsuit. See Fee, Parker & Lloyd, P.A. v. Sullivan, 379 So. 2d 412, 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) ("One need not be certain of the outcome of a criminal or civil proceeding to have probable ca

lege. 11 EFTA00583962 summary judgment in favor of Epstein upon application of the litigation privilege based upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Final judgment was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertai

alicious prosecution action at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time.")(applying Florida law), see, also, Fee, Parker & Lloyd, P.A., 379 So. 2d at 418 ("[W]e find the facts within Mr. Parker's knowledge at the time suit was filed sufficient to constitute probable cause for the c