Anti-SLAPP law appears to survive, but with fix of language

In the chaos of the closing hours of the legislative session it appears the state’s anti-SLAPP law survived largely intact, but with some wording that could prevent a court from ruling it unconstitutional, as was done in Washington state recently.

The “clear and convincing evidence” language in the law was changed to:

“NRS 41.660 provides certain protections to a person against whom an action is brought, if the action is based upon a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern.

“When a plaintiff must demonstrate a probability of success of prevailing on a claim pursuant to NRS 41.660, the Legislature intends that in determining whether the plaintiff “has demonstrated with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim” the plaintiff must meet the same burden of proof that a plaintiff has been required to meet pursuant to California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation law as of the effective date of this act.”





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s