Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Real Estate & Property Law Blogs -> inversecondemnation
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Real Estate & Property Law
: inversecondemnationCal. Supreme Court: Anti-SLAPP Suit Exemption Not Applicable Unless Entirety Of Case For Public Benefit
By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
A "SLAPP suit" is a "strategic lawsuit against public participation," and many states have anti-SLAPP suit statutes designed to thwart retaliatory lawsuits that may chill the public's willingness to exercise First Amendment rights. For example, California's statute defines SLAPP suits as:
lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.
Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 425.16. The anti-SLAPP statute provides that such lawsuits may be dismissed. In Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club, No. S143087 (Dec. 15, 2008), the California Supreme Court held:
Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly referred to as the anti-SLAPP statute, provides that a civil cause of action may be dismissed as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). Section 425.17, subdivision (b) (section 425.17(b)) provides an exception to the anti-SLAPP statute by exempting some actions from dismissal. Here, we hold the exception applies only when the entire action is brought in the public interest. If any part of the complaint seeks relief to directly benefit the plaintiff, by securing relief greater than or different from that sought on behalf of the general public, the section 425.17(b) exception does not apply.
Accordingly, we reverse a contrary judgment by the Court of Appeal. However, we affirm that part of the judgment holding that the trial court properly struck parts of the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute because its order established that plaintiffs did not show a probability of prevailing.
Slip op. at 1-2. Read the full opinion here.
Hawaii's anti-SLAPP statute is codified at Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 634F, and defines a SLAPP suit somewhat differently than California:
"SLAPP" means a strategic lawsuit against public participation and refers to a lawsuit that lacks substantial justification or is interposed for delay or harassment and that is solely based on the party's public participation before a governmental body.
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634F-1 (emphasis added).
Full post as published by inversecondemnation on December 15, 2008 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Mesothelioma Law Suit
Asbestos Exposure
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
NCAA Sued for Conspiracy and Anti-competitive Practices Related to Athletic Scholarships
NCAA Sued for Conspiracy and Anti-competitive Practices Related to Athletic Scholarships
New York, NY and the NYPD
alleging false arrest for violating an unconstitutional anti-loitering law.
VA Sets New Benefit Rules for Agent Orange-Related Ilnesses
Agent Orange-Related Ilnesses VA Sets New Benefit Rules
Lipitor
Review of Studies Show No Significant Benefit in Women
Sea Star Agrees $18.5M Settlement in Anti-trust Class Action
Sea Star Agrees $18.5M Settlement in Anti-trust Class Action
Clopidogrel Marketed as Plavix FDA Issues Public Health Advisory
Clopidogrel Marketed as Plavix FDA Issues Public Health Advisory

Ninth Circuit interprets Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute, dismisses appeal
Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court, Finds Anti-SLAPP Statute Applies To Reporter's Conduct
California Court of Appeals Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Trade Secrets/16600 Case
"Copyright and California's Anti-SLAPP Law"
Right of Publicity Claims by Paris Hilton Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike
California Back Specialists v. Gary Rand (Cal. Ct. App. - March 6, 2008)
Supreme Court grants review in attorney advertising case: Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Gore
Court Awards Perez Hilton Nearly $85,000 in Attorneys Fees in Ronsen Suit
Jones Presents Does the Private Benefit Doctrine Preclude Tax Exemption for HMOs Today at Iowa








