Adkisson's

Anti-SLAPP

Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

Vermont Anti-SLAPP Acts & Laws

Last updated 2017-06-28

 

12 V.S.A. § 1041. Exercise of rights to free speech and to petition government for redress of grievances; special motion to strike

 

(a) A defendant in an action arising from the defendant's exercise, in connection with a public issue, of the right to freedom of speech or to petition the government for redress of grievances under the U.S. or Vermont Constitution may file a special motion to strike under this section.

 

(b) A special motion to strike under this section shall be filed with the court and served on all parties not more than 60 days after the filing of the complaint. A party may file a response to the motion not more than 15 days after the motion is served on the party. The court may extend the time limits of this subsection for good cause shown.

 

(c)

 

(1) The filing of a special motion to strike under this section shall stay all discovery proceedings in the action. Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, the stay of discovery shall remain in effect until the court rules on the special motion to strike.

 

(2) The court, on motion and for good cause shown, may order that limited discovery be conducted for the purpose of assisting its decision on the special motion to strike.

 

(d) The court shall hold a hearing on a special motion to strike not more than 30 days after service of the motion unless good cause exists for an extension.

 

(e)

 

(1) The court shall grant the special motion to strike, unless the plaintiff shows that:

 

(A) the defendant's exercise of his or her right to freedom of speech and to petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support and any arguable basis in law; and

 

(B) the defendant's acts caused actual injury to the plaintiff.

 

(2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.

 

(f)

 

(1) If the court grants the special motion to strike, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the defendant. If the court denies the special motion to strike and finds the motion is frivolous or is intended solely to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the plaintiff.

 

(2) Neither the court's ruling on the special motion to strike nor the fact that it made such a ruling shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by the ruling.

 

(g) An order granting or denying a special motion to strike shall be appealable in the same manner as an interlocutory order under Rule 5 of the Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure.

 

(h) This section shall not apply to any enforcement action or criminal proceeding brought by the State of Vermont or any political subdivision thereof.

 

(i) As used in this section, "the exercise, in connection with a public issue, of the right to freedom of speech or to petition the government for redress of grievances under the U.S. or Vermont Constitution" includes:

 

(1) any written or oral statement made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;

 

(2) any written or oral statement made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;

 

(3) any written or oral statement concerning an issue of public interest made in a public forum or a place open to the public; or

 

(4) any other statement or conduct concerning a public issue or an issue of public interest which furthers the exercise of the constitutional right of freedom of speech or the constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

 

UNIFORM LAWS PROJECT

 

Drafting Committee for Uniform Anti-SLAPP Act (or whatever it ends up being called), began project 2017 and hopes to submit final Uniform Act by 2020 -- see http://uniformlaws.org/Committee.aspx?title=Anti-Slapp and note that any interested person can register as an Observer and attend and participate in meetings. The author of this website, Jay D. Adkisson, is the American Bar Association's Business Law Section Adviser to this Committee, and the originator of this Uniform Law Commission project.

 

ARTICLES ON ANTI-SLAPP

 

2017.01.13 ... Minnesota Court Of Appeals Boots Clear And Convincing Anti-SLAPP Burden Of Proof

2015.8.29 ... A Call For A Uniform Anti-SLAPP Act

 

UNITED STATES ANTI-SLAPP LAWS

 

Arizona  ..... A.R.S. § 12-751, et seq.

 

Alabama ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Alaska ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Arkansas  ..... A.C.A. § 16-63-502, et seq.

 

California  ..... C.C.P. § 425.16, et seq.

 

Colorado ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Connecticut ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Delaware  ..... 10 Del.C. § 8136, et seq.

 

Florida  ..... F.S. § 768.295

 

Georgia  ..... Ga.C. § 9-11-11.1.

 

Hawaii  ..... HRS § 634F-1, et seq.

 

Idaho ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Illinois  ..... 735 ILCS 110/1, et seq.

 

Indiana  ..... I.C. § 34-7-7-1, et seq.

 

Iowa ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Kansas  ..... Kan.Stat. § 60-5320

 

Kentucky ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Louisiana  ..... C.C.P. Art. 971

 

Maine  ..... 14 Me.R.S. § 556

 

Maryland  ..... MD Code, Courts & Jud. Proceedings § 5-807

 

Massachusetts  ..... M.G.L. 231 § 59H

 

Michigan ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Minnesota  ..... Mn.Stat. § 554.01, et seq.

 

Mississippi ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Missouri  ..... Mo.Stat. § 537.528

 

Montana ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Nebraska  ..... Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-21, 242, et seq.

 

Nevada  ..... N.R.S. § 41.635, et seq.

 

 

New Hampshire ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

New Jersey ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

New Mexico  ..... N.Mex.Stat. § 38-2-9.1, et seq.

 

New York  ..... N.Y.Civ.Rights.L. § 70-a.

 

North Carolina ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

North Dakota ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Ohio ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Oklahoma  ..... Okla.Stat. § 12-1430, et seq.

 

Oregon  ..... O.R.S. § 31.150, et seq.

 

Pennsylvania  ..... 27 Pa.C.S.A. § 7707.

 

Rhode Island  ..... R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-33-1, et seq.

 

South Carolina ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

South Dakota ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Tennessee  ..... Tenn.Stat. § 4-21-1001, et seq.

 

Texas  ..... Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 27.001, et seq.

 

Utah  ..... Utah Code § 78B-6-1401, et seq.

 

Vermont  ..... 12 V.S. § 1041.

 

Virginia ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Washington  ..... Wa.Stat. § 4.24.525.

 

West Virginia ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Wisconsin ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

Wyoming ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

District of Columbia  ..... D.C.St. § 16-5501, et seq.

 

Guam ..... 7 G.C.A. § 17101, et seq.

 

Puerto Rico ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

U.S. Virgin Islands ..... No Anti-SLAPP statute when last checked.

 

FEDERAL LEGISLATION: Speak Free Act of 2015 (not enacted, presumed dead).

 

OTHER INFORMATIONAL WEBSITES BY JAY ADKISSON

 

  • Jay Adkisson - More about Jay D. Adkisson, background, books, articles, speaking appearances.

 

  • Captive Insurance Companies - Licensed insurance companies formed by the parent organization to handle the insurance and risk management needs of the business, by the author of the best-selling book on the topic: Adkisson's Captive Insurance Companies.

 

  • Asset Protection Book - The all-time best-selling book on asset protection planning by Jay Adkisson and Chris Riser.

 

  • Judgment Collection - An explanation of common creditor remedies, strategies and tactics to enforce a judgment, including a discussion of common debtor asset protection strategies.

 

  • Voidable Transactions - Discussion of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (a/k/a 2014 Revision of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act) and fraudulent transfer law in general.

 

  • Private Retirement Plans - An exploration of a unique creditor exemption allowed under California law which can be very beneficial but is often misused.

 

  • Charging Orders - The confusing remedy against a debtor's interest in an LLC or partnership is explained in reference to the Uniform Partnership Act, the Uniform Limited Partnership Act, and the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act.

 

  • Protected Series LLCs - An examination of the single most complex statutory legal structure yet created, with particular reference to the Uniform Protected Series Act of 2017.

 

  • California Enforcement of Judgments Law - Considers the topic of judgment enforcement in California, including the California Enforcement of Judgments Law and other laws related to California creditor-debtor issues.

 

© 2019 by Jay D. Adkisson. All Rights Reserved. No claim to original government works. The information contained in this website is for general educational purposes only, does not constitute any legal advice or opinion, and should not be relied upon in relation to particular cases. Use this information at your own peril; it is no substitute for the legal advice or opinion of an attorney licensed to practice law in the appropriate jurisdiction. Other. Questions about this website should be directed to jay [at] jayad.com or by phone to 702-953-9617 or by fax to 877-698-0678. This website is https://antislapplaws.com