42 results for 'cat:"Anti-SLAPP" AND cat:"Defamation"'.
J. Thompson reverses the lower court dismissal of three retired military psychologists’ defamation action against the American Psychological Association and an attorney for their publication of a report that accused them of colluding with the Department of Defense to implement interrogation techniques that would not be restricted by APA ethical guidelines. The Home Rule Act precludes the application of the D.C. Anti-SLAPP
Act in this case. Reversed.
Court: DC Court of Appeals, Judge: Thompson, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 20-CV-0318 , Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, Military
J. Reichek finds that the lower court properly denied the appellants' motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The action asserts claims for defamation per se and business disparagement, based on multiple communications, including five text messages and one voicemail. The Act applies, but the appellees established a prima facie case for their claims. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Reichek, Filed On: September 6, 2023, Case #: 05-22-00616-CV, Categories: anti-slapp, Civil Procedure, defamation
J. Golemon finds the trial court improperly denied the breast-augmentation patient’s motion to dismiss this suit brought by her doctor alleging defamation, business disparagement, invasion of privacy and breach of contract arising from social media posts she made regarding her disappointment with the results. The patient met her initial burden to show the doctor’s claims fall within the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act. The doctor then failed to establish a prima facie case for these, of which his claim for injunctive relief was derivative. Reversed and remanded.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Golemon, Filed On: August 10, 2023, Case #: 09-22-00414-CV, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, Medical Malpractice
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Yarbrough finds that the lower court improperly dismissed this libel and defamation lawsuit under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The dismissal motion was untimely filed, meaning the appellee forfeited "the statute's protections." Also, even if the filing had been timely, the hearing date was outside the statutory deadline. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Yarbrough, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: 07-23-00022-CV, Categories: anti-slapp, Civil Procedure, defamation
J. Drozd grants $275,000 in attorney fees to a candy company after it succeeded on its Anti-SLAPP motion in a man’s libel case against it. The original $355,000 in requested fees is reduced due, in part, to a reduction in hours listed and certain hourly rates.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Drozd, Filed On: June 23, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv35, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, Attorney Fees
J. McConnell finds that the trial court properly found for the city attorney in a defamation case and properly awarded her attorney fees and costs after she prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion. The individual who brought the defamation case did not timely file a motion to tax the costs outlined in the city attorney's memorandum of costs. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: McConnell, Filed On: June 16, 2023, Case #: D080283, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation, Attorney Fees
J. Pipkin finds that the trial court properly dismissed the city councilman's libel action against the newspaper operator arising after a newspaper published a story about the councilman's actions in a city council matter related to his neighbors' alleged municipal code violations. The councilman claimed the story implied he killed the neighbors' goat and cow. The trial court correctly found that the story fell within the protections of Georgia's anti-SLAPP statute. The story is connected with a public issue or issue of public concern and does not make any especially injurious accusation in reference to the councilman's profession or office. None of the statements identified by the councilman as allegedly libelous actually rise to the level of libel. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Pipkin, Filed On: June 12, 2023, Case #: A23A0464, Categories: anti-slapp, defamation
J. Byrne finds the trial court improperly ruled against Texas gubernatorial candidate, Robert Francis O’Rourke, in a defamation case filed against him by GOP donor Kelcy Warren. O’Rourke argues that critical statements he said about Warren were protected under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, an anti-SLAPP statute. The statements made by O’Rourke were based on his subjective opinion during a political race. They were non-actionable and fell well within the grounds of protected speech. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Byrne, Filed On: June 9, 2023, Case #: 03-22-00416-CV, Categories: anti-slapp, Civil Rights, defamation
[Modified.] J. Wiley modifies more than a dozen sentences in a defamation opinion with no change in judgment. The trial court erred in granting Rep. Maxine Waters' anti-SLAPP motion in a defamation case over for an allegation she made during the 2020 election campaign. Evidence shows the possibility that Waters, who said her opponent had been dishonorably discharged from the Navy, willfully disregarded available information to the contrary. Her opponent sufficiently showed that Waters had not taken the minimal steps required to investigate the evidence he claimed showed his discharge had been honorable, so his defamation claim should have been allowed to proceed. Vacated.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Wiley, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: B312937, Categories: anti-slapp, Elections, defamation