The state court found that terms such as "racist" and "white nationalist" are non-actionable opinion and that, even if actionable, plaintiff had failed to show any evidence of actual malice.
A D.C. politician failed to assert viable claims against a newspaper over coverage of his departure from government service and his “rocky” tenure at the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, a D.C. Superior Court judge ruled in August.
The panel affirmed the district court’s granting of a motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP law, finding that the lower court correctly determined that plaintiffs, were limited-purpose public figures and that they had failed to satisfy the actual malice standard.
Texas Court of Appeals Upholds Anti-SLAPP Dismissal of Claims Brought by Suspect in Child Pornography CaseCatherine Robb
FTS filed an Anti-SLAPP Motion arguing that the complained of statements were substantially true, accurate reports of third-party allegations, and privileged under the fair report and fair comment privilege.
In the wake of the recent trial and verdict in favor of Johnny Depp in Virginia's Fairfax County Circuit Court, many are asking what led to this outcome. Holland & Knight litigators share three factors that led to this result.
Location, location, location. The real estate axiom has never been more relevant to defamation cases in light of the hodge-podge of state anti-SLAPP statutes, and federal courts’ interpretation of those laws.
A recent decision from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal has teed up for the state Supreme Court the issue of whether a trial court’s denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable.
In May 2022, not surprisingly, given Washington’s pioneering role, Judge Thomas S. Zilly, a federal judge in Seattle, became the first judge to grant a UPEPA motion for expedited relief and dismissal under the state’s new anti-SLAPP law.
In only the second case to date to apply Colorado’s anti-SLAPP Act (passed into law in 2019) to a news outlet, a trial court judge tossed a defamation case against Kyle Clark, the nightly news anchor at KUSA-TV/9News, the TEGNA-owned NBC affiliate in Denver.
The decision serves to tee up a divide between Appellate Divisions on the issue of retroactivity because the First Department went the other way in Gottwald v Sebert (the “Dr. Luke v Ke$ha” case), holding that the anti-SLAPP amendments should not have retroactive application.