Site /

State Laws

State AntiSlappStateActsLaw

STATE LAW RANKINGS

Tier "A" States -- Quality Anti-SLAPP statute, including provision for uniformity of interpretation to prevent forum-shopping and enhance quality of court opinions.

Hawaii .... Adopted UPEPA.
Idaho .... Adopted UPEPA.
Kentucky .... Adopted UPEPA.
Maine .... Adopted UPEPA.
Minnesota .... Adopted UPEPA.
New Jersey .... Adopted UPEPA.
Ohio .... Adopted UPEPA.
Pennsylvania .... Adopted UPEPA.
Utah .... Adopted UPEPA.
Washington .... Adopted UPEPA.

Tier "B" States -- Quality Anti-SLAPP statute, but without provision for uniformity of interpretation.

California ... Long the flagship leader of Anti-SLAPP laws, has been supplanted by the UPEPA and is now showing its age, with court opinions conflicting with the clear text of the statute.
Colorado ... Covers the most important parts but no uniformity.
Georgia ... Generally good statute but requirement that responding party establish a "probability" of success at trial may create a constitutional infirmity, and no uniformity.
Kansas ... Good statute but lacking in a uniformity provision.
Nevada ... Arguably the best of the non-UPEPA statutes, but the lack of uniformity has arguably resulted in some quirky court opinions.
New York ... Newer Anti-SLAPP law adopted shortly before the UPEPA was completed and modeled on the California statute.
Oklahoma ... Good statute but lacking in a uniformity provision.
Oregon ... Now conforms in the most important aspects to the UPEPA, but still lacking in a uniformity provision.
Tennessee ... Good statute but lacking in a uniformity provision.
Texas ... Another statute modeled on the California statute and modified to its current form shortly before the UPEPA was completed, but falsely criticized for reasons relating more to the antiquated Texas Practice & Procedure Code than the statute itself.
Vermont ... Good statute but lacking in a uniformity provision.

Tier "C" States -- Average Anti-SLAPP statute, but restricted in scope and/or lacking important protective provisions.

Arkansas ... Scope restricted to matters involved in a governmental proceeding, and no appeal of right for an unsuccessful movant.
Connecticut ... Scope restricted to matters involved in a governmental proceeding. No statutory appeal of right for an unsuccessful movant, although court opinions seem to effectively permit such appeals.
Distr. Columbia ... Discovery not automatically stayed (although a movant can bring a "Special Motion To Quash", and no appeal of right for an unsuccessful movant.
Guam ... No appeal of right for an unsuccessful movant, also potential unresolved constitutional questions relating from employment of the "clear and convincing" standard.
Illinois ... Allows discovery between the parties upon a showing of "good cause" but no stay of other matters, the stay does not apply during an appeal, no burden shift, and no attorney's fee award to a successful respondent where the movant has been found to have filed the motion frivolously or for purposes of delay.
Indiana ... No appeal of right for an unsuccessful movant.
Louisiana ... No appeal of right for an unsuccessful movant and requirement that respondent must prove a probability of success at trial raises concern of constitutional challenges.
Rhode Island ... Contains a confusing exception the protection of free speech if it is a "sham", and court may order discovery between the parties for "good cause" after a hearing which by itself will result in additional litigation, no burden shifting to the respondent, and no appeal of right for the movant if the motion is denied.

Tier "D" States -- Poor Anti-SLAPP statute, significantly restricted in scope and without most important protective provisions.

Arizona ... So restricted in scope as to be nearly worthless and thus is rarely utilized.
Delaware ... Protections limited to causes of action brought by a "public applicant or permittee", no stay, no appeal of right to an unsuccessful movant, and attorney fees awarded only if the cause of action was frivolous.
Florida ... Narrow scope of protection limited to governmental proceedings and statements about media or media-entertainment products. No stay of discovery and no appeal of right for a movant that loses a special motion.
Nebraska ... Restricted to protecting citizens commenting upon proposed public action, e.g., the common real estate developer suing critics of proposed changes to a zoning ordinance type of cases. No stay and no appeal of right to an unsuccessful movant.
Maryland ... Scope limited to statements to a governmental body, no appeal of right if the movant loses the motion, no award of fees.
Massachusetts ... Scope limited to the right of petition, i.e., activities before a governmental body or the courts, no general stay, discovery stayed but may be permitted upon a showing of "good cause", and no appeal of right if the movant loses the motion.
Missouri ... Scope limited to statements made in connection with a public hearing or meeting, and no general stay but discovery stayed.
New Mexico ... Scope limited to statements made in connection with a public hearing, and no stay.
Virginia ... Very barebones statute with a limited protection, no stay, no burden-shifting, and no appeal of right for a movant who loses the motion.

Tier "F" States -- No Anti-SLAPP statute.

STATE TOPICS

TEXT