Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dana Desjardins v. Michael Reynolds

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided May 18, 2017No. Docket: Cum-15-365Published

1DissentJabar, J.

[¶ 22] I respectfully dissent for two reasons. First, the Court’s decision overstates the protection afforded to petitioning activity. The decision prevents what would otherwise be a meritorious case of defamation from proceeding in our courts. The Court states that Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute, 14 M.R.S. § 556 (2016), “create[s] a procedure for the prompt dismissal of lawsuits that challenge any actions that fall within that broad definition of petitioning activity.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 18 (emphasis added). This is not accurate; the statute was intended to protect petitioning activity from…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Curtis v. PorterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2001
  3. Rippett v. BemisSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
  4. Morse Bros., Inc. v. WebsterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2001
  5. Batchelder v. Realty Resources Hospitality, LLCSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2007

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API