Epstein Secrets

ims are not subject to the litigation www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 001237 EFTA00613534 28 1 privilege. 2 And if you read Wright vs. Yurko, you read 3 Judge Cope's concurring opinion, and you read the 4 panel's footnote in SCI, one should not come up 5 with any other conclusion oth

ion in 2000, both of which both 19 Judge Cope and the panel in the SCI case note that 20 the Supreme Court's citation in Levin to Wright 21 vs. Yurko, which I cited in the memorandum, which 22 was a Fifth DCA decision back in 1984, implicitly 23 24 25 recognizes -- that is the Supreme Court i

MR. BREWER: So let's get into the Wolfe case. That's where we're headed next. And really there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. All of them deal with litigation privilege which dates back to 191

•• "THE COURT: This deals with the litigation privilege?" The attorney then goes on to say, "Yes, sir, it does deal with litigation privilege. Echevarria also deals with the litigation privilege. Delmonico stands for the proposition that the issues with regard to privilege are some issues of law for

submits that the trial court's Order granting his Motion for Summary Judgment was proper, as the binding decisions by the Florida Supreme Court in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) and Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639

are not subject to the litigation www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606536 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 privilege. And if you read Wright vs. Yurko, you read Judge Cope's concurring opinion, and you read the panel's footnote in SCI, one should not come up with any other conclusion other than t

ion in 2000, both of which both 19 Judge Cope and the panel in the SCI case note that 20 the Supreme Court's citation in Levin to Wright 21 vs. Yurko, which I cited in the memorandum, which 22 was a Fifth DCA decision back in 1984, implicitly 23 recognizes -- that is the Supreme Court itself 2

nger an issue either for purposes of 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 and now this Wolfe case is not being disposed of 23 24 25 Wolfe, Levin, and Echevarria cases. this summary judgment. Pursuant -- THE COURT: Let me stop you, Mr. King, so that you're not confused by my preliminary statements to Mr. B

A: So let's get into the Wolfe 9 case. That's where we're headed next. And really 10 there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin 11 case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close 12 to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. 13 All of them deal with litigation privilege which 14 dates

ts known by the defendant in the malicious prosecution action at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present

at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present to the court and jury." 446 So. 2d at 1167. Here, both the aff

ss and malicious prosecution claims, and also finding that Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe provided "binding precedent in this area of law." (R. 1203).2 Fi

a state and federal courts. See, SCI Funeral Svs. of Fla., Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702, n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“As the Levin court cited Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1984), with approval, presumably the cause of action for malicious prosecution continues to exist and would not

nesses, and counsel as well. id. The litigation privilege applies in all causes of action, whether for common- law torts or statutory violations. See Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). Defamatory statements made by lawyer while interviewing a witness in prepar