Matthew Lippincott and Creg Parks v. Warren Whisenhunt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the plain language of [the TCPA] merely limits its scope to communications involving a public subject—not communications in a public form”
• recognizing that the “plain language of the statute imposes no requirement that the form of the communication be public.”
• recognizing that after the defendants \successfully demonstrated the applicability of the [TCPA]\ the court of appeals must consider whether the plaintiff \met the prima facie burden the [TCPA] requires.\
• holding that court of appeals erred by finding that the definition of 36 “communication” protected only public communication and concluding that communication dealt with a matter of public concern
• recognizing that after the defendants “successfully demonstrated the applicability of the [TCPA]” the court of appeals must consider whether the plaintiff “met the prima facie burden the [TCPA] requires.”
• holding that plain language of Act imposes no requirement that communication be public

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).