This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

On Friday, March 5, 1976, the lawyer defendants (D) met to review a draft of a class action complaint to be filed against P, which challenged the particular sales technique employed by P to sell its 'pre-paid funerals.' May London (D), one of the elderly class action clients, attended the meeting. Edythe Jensen, a reporter for the Phoenix Gazette newspaper, arrived at the law offices where the meeting was held. One of the lawyers had invited Jensen to the offices to learn about the basis for the class action. Jensen received a copy of the drafted complaint and discussed the case with at least one D. Jensen wrote an article describing the grounds of the class action suit. Jensen wrote an article describing the grounds of the class action suit. She quoted Ds and unfavorably characterized the manner in which P marketed their 'prepaid funerals.' The Gazette published the article on Monday, March 8, 1976, the same day D filed the class action complaint. P sued Ds for defamation based on communications made by D to Jensen. Ps did not name Jensen nor her employer as party defendants. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Ds. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that both an absolute and a qualified privilege to defame protected D and supported the entry of summary judgment. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.