Telesford v. Maryland Provo

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP statute was inapplicable in federal courts because it was “procedural mechanism,” not a “substantive right or remedy”
• holding that “one cannot reasonably read the language of the New Mexico anti- SLAPP statute as providing a defendant with a substantive defense to SLAPP liability”
• stating that the \party asserting jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine\ bears the burden on each element
• stating that the “party asserting jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine” bears the burden on each element
• affirming district court holding that the New Mexico anti-SLAPP statute’s procedural mechanisms are inapplicable in federal court
• recognizing New Mexico anti-SLAPP statute as procedural where “[a] defendant's reliance on [the statute] will not alter the suit’s outcome because it does not provide a defendant the right to avoid liability apart from a separate determination of the suit’s underlying merits.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).