Shirley v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that defendant’s domicile had “the clearest interest in applying its anti-SLAPP law vis-à-vis one of its own citizens”
• applying law of speaker’s domicile to anti- SLAPP defense because the “anti-SLAPP question involves whether a statement is privileged, not whether its content is defamatory”
• applying Tennessee's anti-SLAPP statute-even when defendant argued in favor of applying another state's statute-because that is where the defendant was domiciled and made the statements
• observing that the \'place of injury . . . is less important' in 'the anti-SLAPP context'\ (quoting Chi v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr., 787 F. Supp. 2d 797, 803 (N.D. Ill. 2011)); Diamond Ranch Acad., Inc. v. Filer, 117 F. Supp. 3d 1313, 1323 (D. Utah 2015
• “the anti-SLAPP question involves whether a statement is privileged, not whether its content is defamatory.”
• “. . . Illinois follows the doctrine of dépeçage, which ‘refers to the process of cutting up a case into individual issues, each subject to a separate choice-of-law analysis.’” (quoting Chi v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr., 787 F. Supp. 2d 797, 801 (N.D. Ill. 2011))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).