Cited by

Indeed, we have cautioned that “the availability of an absolute privilege must be reserved for those situations where the public interest is so vital and apparent that it mandates complete freedom of expression without inquiry into a defendant’s motives.” Supry v. Bolduc, 112 N.H. 274, 276 (1972).

We have previously held that municipal zoning boards of adjustment are quasi-judicial in nature, and thus statements made before such boards should be afforded qualified immunity.

Pickering, 123 N.H. at 329, 461 A.2d at 119; McGranahan, 119 N.H. at 763, 408 A.2d at 124; cf. Supry v. Bolduc, 112 N.H. 274, 276, 293 A.2d 767, 769 (1972) (determining statements made during a public hearing were not absolutely privileged because the hearing did not have all the hallmarks of a judicial proceeding).

Piecuch v. Manchester, 114 N.H. 8, 9-10, 314 A.2d 642, 643 (1974); Supry v. Bolduc, 112 N.H. 274, 275-76, 293 A.2d 767, 769 (1972).

He cites Supry v. Bolduc, 112 N.H. 274, 293 A.2d 767 (1972), in which we held that statements made during a public hearing of the Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment on a request for a zoning variance were not absolutely privileged, because many elements of a true judicial proceeding which afford safeguards to the participants were not required, and becaus

In support of this position, the plaintiff relies upon Thomson v. Cash supra; Supry v. Bolduc, 112 N.H. 274, 293 A.2d 767 (1972); and Jones v. Walsh, 107 N.H. 379, 222 A.2d 830 (1966).

In the case of a conditional privilege, the question whether the defendant is entitled to claim the privilege is a question for' the trier of fact.

See, e.g., Supry v. Bolduc, 112 N.H. 274, 277, 293 A.2d 767, 769 (1972); Jones v. Walsh, 107 N.H. 379, 381-82, 222 A.2d 830, 832 (1966); Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 87 (1966).

After a hearing the board decided unanimously that Haigh Road was not a public right of way.