Document Mentions (3 shared documents)

EFTA00589617

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

osecution and affirm on the authority of Procacci v. Zacco, 402 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)." Id. at 1008. As with Wright, it is undeniable that Graham-Eckes was decided before Echevarria, Levin, and Wolfe. Further, Procacci v. Zacco, 402 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the case upon which the Graham-Eck

aham-Eckes was decided before Echevarria, Levin, and Wolfe. Further, Procacci v. Zacco, 402 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the case upon which the Graham-Eckes court relied in issuing its decision, immunized from suit the "malicious publication" of false statements because they were made during the course

ier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, M. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). Additionally, the Third District Court of Appeal in Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), concluded that the litigation privilege applies to a cause of action for malicious prosecuti

EFTA00714920

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

pier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell,.. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). Additionally, the Third District Court of Appeal in Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), concluded that the litigation privilege applies to a cause of action for malicious prosecuti

EFTA00613501_sub_002 - EFTA00613501_114

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

g, P.A., 125 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) in matters involving the litigation privilege. In the instant case, the trial court was legally bound by the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Wolfe, as the Florida Supreme Court stated unequivocally that a "trial court may not overrule or recede from the controlling decision