Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Dave who wrote (90808)	2/5/2005 7:26:21 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Yes, but I think Jeff Mitchell could probably answer the precedent question better than I could. I don't know if it has been cited in the Zwebner v Everybody Else lawsuits or not. It would be interesting to know if it's been used as precedent in other similarly-ruled cases. Message 21020839 The Court GRANTS Defendant King and Defendant Reader's Motions to Dismiss. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request for discovery. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 23, 2001 _____________________________ DAVID O. CARTER United States District Judge

To: SI Dave who wrote (90808)	2/5/2005 9:14:46 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

I suppose the Global Telemedia was precedent setting in that, at least to my memory, it was the first time the anti-SLAPP procedure was used successfully to get attorney's fees from a publicly traded company that had sued someone just to shut them up. At the time, early 2001, I recall being hopeful that the suit would be a great deterrent. What it succeeded in doing was moving the lawsuits out of California and into Nevada and Florida which didn't have strong anti-SLAPP legislation. - Jeff