Document Type
Case Summary
Publication Date
1-2024
Case Synopsis
Anti-SLAPP statutes in Nevada follow a two-pronged analysis. The first prong asks whether the moving party has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claims are based upon a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern. Similarly, the defendant must establish that the communication is truthful or was made without knowledge of its falsehood. The second prong asks whether the plaintiff has demonstrated with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on its claims. Anti-SLAPP statutes are not limited to specific kinds of claims for relief, but rather focus on the defendant’s actions and are available regardless of the relief the plaintiff seeks.
Recommended Citation
Callahan, Evan, "Panik v. TMM, Inc., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (Nov. 30, 2023)" (2024). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1615.
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nvscs/1615