Purnell v. Reynolds

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “development of information” requires “something more substantial than merely editing portions of an e-mail and selecting material for publication”
• holding that denial of - special motion to dismiss under California Anti-SLAPP Act met Cohen standards because it created a substantive immunity from suit and provided for immediate right of appeal
• holding that denial of special motion to dismiss under California Anti-SLAPP Act met Cohen standards because it created a substantive immunity from suit and provided for immediate right of appeal
• holding that the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is appealable under § 1291
• noting that California’s anti-SLAPP rule “is designed to protect the defendant from having to litigate meritless cases aimed at chilling First Amendment expression”
• holding that even if operator of internet services could have reasonably concluded that the information was sent for internet publication, he was immunized from liability for the defamatory speech as a \provider or user of interactive computer services\ under the CDA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).