(Updated October 1, 2007)
Statutes
RSMo Sec. 537.528
The state's anti-SLAPP statute was introduced as Senate Bill 807 by Sen. John Loudon on Dec. 3, 2003, passed the legislature May 13, 2004, and was signed by the governor. It becomes effective Aug. 28, 2004. The statute is substantially identical to a bill introduced during the previous legislative session, SB 268, which was not acted on. As in many states, the SB 807 was a response to a lawsuit (see Mandel et al. v. O'Connor et al. below). (Note! The bill proposed amending RSMo sec. 537.800, but the statute was codified at sec. 537.528.)
Bills
SB 232
SB 232 was introduced Jan. 26, 2005 by Sen. Loudon to strengthen the state's anti-SLAPP statute (RSMo Sec. 537.528). It would require courts to dismiss an action arising from "conduct or speech or other petitioning activities undertaken or made at or in connection with a public hearing or public meeting, in a quasi-judicial proceeding before a tribunal or decision-making body" unless the SLAPPer produced clear and convincing evidence that the target of the SLAPP is not immunized from liability. The bill passed the Senate. It was amended in the House and unable to clear the House and return to the Senate before the end of the session.
Cases
Cedar Green Land Acquisition v. Baker
Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District, 2007
Denial of a special motion to dismiss under the state's anti-SLAPP statute is not a final judgment in the case and is not subject to interlocutory appeal.
Mandel et al. v. O'Connor et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District, 2003
The mayor of Creve Coeur sued citizens for defamation after they criticized the mayor for not investigating possible city charter violations. The court affirms the trial court's summary judgment in favor of defendants.
State ex rel. Diehl v. Kintz
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District, 2005
Diehl was sued for defamation after he publicly spoke at a hearing on a company's application for a trash transfer station and distributed a handbill to the public opposing the application. Diehl's motion for dismissal was denied by the trial court. Diehl filed a petition for writ of mandate to force dismissal. The appellate court ordered the trial court to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on the grounds that plaintiff could not succeed on its defamation complaint. The court notes that, although the state's anti-SLAPP statute (§ 537.528) "was not in effect to grant Diehl an immediate remedy, the same concerns that animated the legislature in enacting this statute may guide the exercise of our discretion in issuing a writ."
Resources
Stephen L. Kling, Missouri's New Anti-SLAPP Law , Journal of the Missouri Bar, Vol. 61, No. 3 (May-June 2005).
Return to Other States: Statutes and Cases