Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Long v. Mertz, 407 P.2d 404.

26 citing documents.

State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
253, 256-57 , -37 (1975) (finding that only a qualified privilege protects executive officials in the course of their duties from liability for defamation), , (holding that an absolute privilege protects public officials in the course of their duties from liability for defamation).
Ledvina v. Cerasani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Ledvina v. Cerasani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶7 First, Kress relied on an earlier Division One case, Long v. Mertz, 2 Ariz. App. 215, which examined the question of absolute versus qualified immunity in terms of the status and obligations of appointed public officials whose official duties require them to make reports in the public interest, a situation clearly not present here.
Chamberlain v. Mathis 729 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1986
Chamberlain v. Mathis 729 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1986
Carlson v. Pima County 687 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Carlson v. Pima County 687 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Aspell v. AM. CONTRACT BRIDGE LEAGUE, ETC. 595 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Aspell v. AM. CONTRACT BRIDGE LEAGUE, ETC. 595 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Wyatt v. Ruck Construction Inc. 571 P.2d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Wyatt v. Ruck Construction Inc. 571 P.2d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
is on point and justifies the court’s granting of summary judgment on the defamation charges.
Petroni v. Board of Regents 566 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Petroni v. Board of Regents 566 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
1335 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959), , extending the defense of absolute privilege to a claim for defamation against a public officer for making a statement in the course of official duties which he is directed or authorized specifically by law to do.
Grande v. State 565 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Grande v. State 565 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals relied on the reasoning of Barr v. Matteo, supra, , to extend absolute immunity to the defendant, an official of the Arizona Highway Department, who had refused to furnish a bid envelope to the plain *397 tiff and publicly stated that plaintiff “was not a qualified contractor.” “Without passing upon the question of whether the statement by Mertz t
Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 560 P.2d 1216 Ariz. 1977
Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 560 P.2d 1216 Ariz. 1977
Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 547 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 547 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
at 333-334 , 476 P.2d at 539 To the same effect
Martinez v. Cardwell 542 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Martinez v. Cardwell 542 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
P.2d 404 (1965), a decision of Division One of this court.
SH Kress and Company v. Self 526 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
SH Kress and Company v. Self 526 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
the court discussed the privileges sometimes afforded in defamation cases: “The courts, from the days of the common law until the present, have, on the basis of public policy, granted immunity to certain persons from civil liability for having made defamatory statements regarding others.
Bugarin v. WILSON SCH. DIST. NO. 7 OF MARICOPA CO. 499 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Bugarin v. WILSON SCH. DIST. NO. 7 OF MARICOPA CO. 499 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
621 , 21 L.Ed.2d 562 ; , and Klahr v. Winterble, 4 Ariz.App.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by