Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
JOHN DOE NO. 1 v. SUSAN L. BURKE
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided March 10, 2016No. 15-CV-690Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcLEESE, J.
I agree that the trial court’s order denying attorney’s fees to Mr. Doe should be vacated. I write separately because my reasoning differs from the court’s reasoning in several significant respects.
The court interprets, the District’s Anti-SLAPP Act as presumptively entitling a successful movant to an award of attorney’s fees, unless. special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Although the issue is not free from doubt, I conclude that the Act is better read to give trial courts discretion whether to award attorney’s fees to successful movants.
I
A. Statutory Language. ■
The Act…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.