[Updated May 20, 2007]
See the comprehensive webpage A Guide to Selected Sources on Anti-SLAPP Law in Massachusetts, part of the "Trial Court Law Libraries" website maintained by 17 public law libraries located across Massachusetts.
Statutes
Chapter 231, Section 59H
Massachusett's anti-SLAPP law was originally introduced as House Bill 3033 on Jan. 7, 1993 as "An Act Limiting Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation." The bill was later retitled "An Act Protecting the Public's Right to Petition Government" and passed both chambers in Jan. 1994, but was vetoed by Governor Weld. The bill was reintroduced as House Bill 1520 and enacted in Dec. 1994 after a second veto by the governor.
Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
Baker v. Parsons
Supreme Judicial Court (SJC-08439), 2001, 434 Mass. 543
The state's anti-SLAPP statute applies to defamation and applies regardless of the timing of the plaintiff's suit.
Fabre v. Walton
Supreme Judicial Court (SJC-08507), 2002, 436 Mass. 517
A trial court's denial of a special motion to dismiss pursuant to the state's anti-SLAPP statute is subject to interlocutory review in the Appeals Court.
Kobrin v. Gastfriend
Supreme Judicial Court (SJC-09251), 2005, 443 Mass. 327
The state's anti-SLAPP statute does not immunize a physician from liability for statements he made about a psychiatrist in his affidavit as an expert witness on behalf of the state's Board of Registration in Medicine.
McLarnon v. Jokisch et al.
Supreme Judicial Court (SJC-08004), 2000, 431 Mass. 343
The anti-SLAPP statute applies to a dispute between former spouses.
Office One, Inc. v. Lopez
Supreme Judicial Court (SJC-08701), 2000, 437 Mass. 113
APPEALS COURT
Donovan v. Gardner
Appeals Court, 2000, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 595
The anti-SLAPP statute applies to a private dispute between neighbors.
Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp.
Appeals Court (96-P-1203), 1998, 427 Mass. 156
In this first appellate opinion applying the state's anti-SLAPP statute (General Laws C. 231, Sec. 59H) the court affirms the trial court's denial of defendants' special motion to strike the complaint. Nevertheless, the court holds that actions protected under the statute are not limited to those involving matters of public concern. In this case defendants were sued for damages for allegedly revealing trade secrets during a proceeding before the Federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that had been initiated by defendants against the plaintiff.
Kalter v. Wood
Appeals Court (05-P-1098), 2006
A grievance letter sent by a patient-insured to a private health insurance carrier alleging inappropriate touching by a physician constitutes petitioning activity within the meaning of the state's anti-SLAPP statute.
MacDonald v. Paton
Appeals Court (01-P-323), 2003
MacDonald, a selectman in Athol, filed a complaint against several defendants alleging libel in a website and newspaper for statements made in connection with a town controversy. The trial court denied Paton's motion to strike the complaint under the state's anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court reverses, stating that the trial court's grounds for denial were inconsistent with appellate court decisions made after the trial court hearing. The court affirmed that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to private parties of modest means and to defamation actions, and that the burden of proof under the statute is on the plaintiff to show that the alleged libelous statements were devoid of any reasonable factual support or any legal protection.
Plante v. Wylie
Appeals Court (03-P-1122), 2005, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 151, 824 N.E. 2d 461
The protections of the Anti-SLAPP statute extend not only to a party that engages in petitioning activity, but also to the attorney who represents that party.
Vittands v. Sudduth
Appeals Court (95-P-812), 1996, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 401
Ruled that the effective date of the state's anti-SLAPP statute is March 29, 1995, but did not rule on any other aspect of the statute.
FEDERAL COURTS
Stuborn Limited Partnership, et al. v. Bernstein
U.S. District Ct. (Mass.), 245 F.Supp.2d 312, 2003
Anti-SLAPP statute was held to be a state procedural rule that was inapplicable in federal court.
Resources
"Anti-SLAPP Law Can't Be Used in Federal Court," 31 Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly 1229 (February 24, 2003).
"Anti-SLAPP Protection Extends to Cyberspace," 31 Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly 1115 (February 10, 2003).
"Of Sexy Phone Calls and Well-Aimed Golf Balls: Anti-SLAPP Statutes in Recent Land-use Damages Litigation," 36 Urban Lawyer 375 (2004).
"'SLAPP' Attack: Has Public Concern Gone South in Massachusetts?," 42 Boston Bar Journal 6 (1998).
"SLAPP Suits are not just about Land Use," 25 Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly 2454 (July 21, 1997).
"When Principles Collide: The Intersection of the Anti-SLAPP Statute, the Fair Employment Practices Act and Defamation Law," 43 Boston Bar Journal 14 (1999).
"When Words Miss the Target," Boston Globe, April 19, 1998, South Weekly edition, p. 2.
Return to Other States: Statutes and Cases