Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rogers v. Dupree

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 16, 2017No. A16A1714; A16A1715; A16A1716; A16A1717Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBarnes, Presiding Judge

Because the trial court erred in denying Butters and Cohen’s motions to dismiss and did not err in granting Dupree’s motion to dismiss, I respectfully dissent in part from the majority opinion.5 Rogers’ claims against all three lawyers should be dismissed under the Georgia Anti-Strategic Litigation against Public Participation Statute (Anti-SLAPP Statute), OCGA § 9-11-11.1. Additionally, because Rogers seeks damages solely for the conduct of counsel undertaken to pursue litigation on their client’s behalf, Rogers’ claims should be dismissed under the exclusive remedy provision of the abusive…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Flatley v. MauroCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Murphy v. BajjaniSupreme Court of Georgia · 2007
  3. Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLPCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  4. Anthony v. American General Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 2010
  5. Rolleston v. HuiteCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1990

35 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