Epstein Secrets

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

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

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

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

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

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