Circus Circus Hotels v. Witherspoon

108 Citing cases

  1. Fink v. Oshins

    118 Nev. 428 (Nev. 2002)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that even if someone merely inferred a defamatory meaning from statements from the context of conversation, that may be enough to establish defamation

    Day v. Zubel, 112 Nev. 972, 977, 922 P.2d 536, 538 (1996).See Circus Circus Hotels v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 62, 657 P.2d 101, 105 (1983) (noting that the absolute privilege is a question of law); SIIS v. United Exposition Services Co., 109 Nev. 28, 30, 846 P.2d 294, 295 (1993) (noting that questions of law are reviewed de novo).Oshins' statements to Denise St. James

  2. Jacobs v. Adelson

    130 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (Nev. 2014)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting majority view in holding that defamatory statements made to the media during the course of judicial proceedings are not absolutely privileged when the media is not a party to the lawsuit or intertwined in it

    Whether a statement is sufficiently relevant to the judicial proceedings to fall within the absolute privilege is a question of law for the court. Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 62, 657 P.2d 101, 105 (1983). The absolute privilege

  3. Jacobs v. Adelson

    No. 58740 (Nev. May. 30, 2014)

    Whether a statement is sufficiently relevant to the judicial proceedings to fall within the absolute privilege is a question of law for the court. Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 62, 657 P.2d 101, 105 (1983). The absolute privilege

  4. Scott Fin. Corp. v. Morrill

    No. 61627 (Nev. Jan. 21, 2014)

    The determination of whether the absolute privilege applies is a matter of law for the court to decide. Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 62, 657 P.2d 101, 105 (1983). The common law absolute privilege rule precludes liability for communications made during the pendency of judicial proceedings, even where the statements are published with knowledge of their falsity and with personal ill will, provided that the communications "are in some way pertinent to the subject of controversy."

  5. Sahara Gaming v. Culinary Workers

    115 Nev. 212 (Nev. 1999)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that, because the "alleged defamatory statements were a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding, they are absolutely privileged, and the material recited will not support a defamation suit even if the statements were made maliciously and with knowledge of their falsity"

    Knox v. Dick, 99 Nev. 514, 518, 665 P.2d 267, 270 (1983). This court reaffirmed the absolute privilege rule in Circus Circus Hotels v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 60, 657 P.2d 101, 104 (1983), wherein we stated: [There] is [a] long-standing common law rule that communications uttered or published in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged so long as they are in some way pertinent to the subject of controversy.

  6. Laszloffy v. Garcia

    2:19-cv-01173-JAD-BNW (D. Nev. Jun. 5, 2024)

    Whether this privilege applies is a question of law for the court to decide.Fink v. Oshins, 49 P.3d 640, 643 (Nev. 2002) (quoting Circus Circus Hotels v. Witherspoon, 657 P.2d 101, 104 (Nev. 1983)). Id. (quoting Circus Circus Hotels, 657 P.2d at 104).

  7. Chudacoff v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada

    437 F. App'x 609 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 1 times
    Applying Nevada law; collecting authorities

    The district court correctly granted summary judgment because the sole alleged defamatory statement, Ellerton's adverse report to the National Practitioners Data Bank (" NPDB" ), was made pursuant to the HCQIA's statutory reporting requirements and was therefore conditionally privileged. See 42 U.S.C. § § 11133(a)(1)(A) & (a)(3), 11134; 45 C.F.R. § § 60.1, 60.3, 60.5(d), 60.11(a)(1)(i) & (b); Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 657 P.2d 101, 105 (Nev. 1983) (qualified or conditional privilege available " where a defamatory statement is made in good faith on any subject matter in which the person communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a right or a duty, if it is made to a person with a corresponding interest or duty" ); see alsoJesinger v. Nev. Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1133 & n.10 (9th Cir. 1994) (collecting cases finding qualified privilege under similar circumstances of information-sharing between current and prospective employers about employee's performance). Furthermore, although the content of the NPDB report was ultimately modified, Chudacoff presents no evidence that Ellerton acted with malice in fact in filing the initial report.

  8. Jesinger v. Nevada Federal Credit Union

    24 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 623 times
    Holding a federal credit union not to be a government actor for Constitutional purposes

    The Nevada courts have recognized, as well, that a qualified or conditional privilege exists where a defamatory statement is made "in good faith on any subject matter in which the person communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he [or she] has a right or a duty, if it is made to a person with a corresponding interest or duty." Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 657 P.2d 101, 105 (1983). Such a privilege may be abused by publication in bad faith, with spite or ill will, or some other wrongful motivation toward the plaintiff, and without belief in the statement's probable truth.

  9. Huston v. Verizon Federal Network Systems, LLC

    2:07-CV-00201-BES-LRL (D. Nev. Sep. 17, 2008)   Cited 1 times
    Finding statements uttered to a few co-workers and a potential employer did not constitute publicity

    Furthermore, the statements made during the June 2, 2005 meeting between Bechtel and FNS management were conditionally privileged. "A qualified or conditional privilege exists where a defamatory statement is made in good faith on any subject matter in which the person communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a right or a duty, if it is made to a person with a corresponding interest or duty." See Circus Circus Hotel, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 62, 657 P.2d 101, 105 (1983). Here, Bechtel and FNS share a common interest in the joint worksite by virtue of the contractual arrangement between the two.

  10. Spencer v. Klementi

    466 P.3d 1241 (Nev. 2020)   Cited 11 times
    Concluding that a failure to oppose a motion constitutes a concession

    We must therefore address whether the judicial-proceedings privilege applies in this context, which we review de novo. Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 62, 657 P.2d 101, 105 (1983) (holding that absolute privilege is a question of law); Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Payo, 133 Nev. 626, 631, 403 P.3d 1270, 1275 (2017) (holding that this court reviews questions of law de novo). Generally, the judicial-proceedings privilege provides absolute immunity to statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding "so long as [the statements] are in some way pertinent to the subject of controversy."