Matthew Lippincott and Creg Parks v. Warren Whisenhunt
Texas Supreme Court
1Per curiam
A court may not judicially amend a statute by adding words that are not contained in the language of the statute. Instead, it must apply the statute as written. This appeal involves the Texas Citizens Participation Act, under which a defendant may move to dismiss a claim involving the exercise of the right to free speech upon a showing that the communication was made in connection with a matter of public concern. Here, the court of appeals held that the Act only applies to communications that are public in form. But the plain language of the Act merely limits its scope to communications…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Leland v. BrandalTexas Supreme Court · 2008
- Molinet v. KimbrellTexas Supreme Court · 2011
- Byron D. Neely, Individually, and Byron D. Neely, M.D., P.A. v. Nanci Wilson, CBS Stations Group of Texas, L.P., D/B/A Keye-Tv and Viacom, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2013
- In the Interest of M.N.Texas Supreme Court · 2008
- Warren Whisenhunt v. Matthew Lippincott and Creg Parks, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2013
3Cited by307 opinions
- ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. ColemanTexas Supreme Court · 2017
- John David Adams v. Starside Custom Builders, LlcTexas Supreme Court · 2018
- Fort Worth Transp. Auth. v. RodriguezTexas Supreme Court · 2018
- Cadena Comercial USA Corp. D/B/A Oxxo v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage CommissionTexas Supreme Court · 2017
- In re CoppolaTexas Supreme Court · 2017
302 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.