33 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 21 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Handy v. Lane Countygreen2 sentences2023See Mullen v. Meredith Corp., 271 Or App 698, 707 , 353 P3d 598 (2015) (addressing the second step of the anti-SLAPP inquiry where the trial court did not because the question was fairly presented to the trial court 7 “There is no dispute that Oregon modeled its anti-SLAPP statute on California’s.” Handy, 360 Or at 618 . 2023See Mullen v. Meredith Corp., 271 Or App 698, 707 , 353 P3d 598 (2015) (addressing the second step of the anti-SLAPP inquiry where the trial court did not because the question was fairly presented to the trial court 7 “There is no dispute that Oregon modeled its anti-SLAPP statute on California’s.” Handy, 360 Or at 618 . | 4 | 6 |
Mullen v. Meredith Corp.green2 sentences2023See Mullen v. Meredith Corp., 271 Or App 698, 707 , 353 P3d 598 (2015) (addressing the second step of the anti-SLAPP inquiry where the trial court did not because the question was fairly presented to the trial court 7 “There is no dispute that Oregon modeled its anti-SLAPP statute on California’s.” Handy, 360 Or at 618 . 2023See Mullen v. Meredith Corp., 271 Or App 698, 707 , 353 P3d 598 (2015) (addressing the second step of the anti-SLAPP inquiry where the trial court did not because the question was fairly presented to the trial court 7 “There is no dispute that Oregon modeled its anti-SLAPP statute on California’s.” Handy, 360 Or at 618 . | 4 | 6 |
Plotkin v. State Accident Insurance Fundgreen2 sentences2024See Plotkin v. SAIF, 280 Or App 812, 829 , 385 P3d 1167 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 851 (2017) (noting that we have yet to address whether ORS 31.150 requires a nonmoving party to produce evidence capable of defeating affirmative defenses in order to meet their prima facie burden at the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis); Johnson v. Monsanto Co., 333 Or App 678 , 700, 554 P3d 290 (2024) (declining to undertake analysis on an issue when the party “has failed to do so itself” in its briefing). 2024See Plotkin v. SAIF, 280 Or App 812, 829 , 385 P3d 1167 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 851 (2017) (noting that we have yet to address whether ORS 31.150 requires a nonmoving party to produce evidence capable of defeating affirmative defenses in order to meet their prima facie burden at the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis); Johnson v. Monsanto Co., 333 Or App 678 , 700, 554 P3d 290 (2024) (declining to undertake analysis on an issue when the party “has failed to do so itself” in its briefing). | 3 | 3 |
Lowes v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2025However, the court agreed with Lowes that “unchal- lenged evidence of a waiver of the rights protected by the anti-SLAPP statute can satisfy a plaintiff’s burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion once a defendant has satisfied the burden at the first step.” Id. 2025The court concluded that “the parties’ prior contractual agreement not to engage in the very speech that is the subject of the anti-SLAPP motion is sufficient for Lowes to satisfy his burden in response to the special motion to strike.” Id. | 2 | 4 |
Wingard v. Or. Family Council, Inc.green2 sentences2025See Wingard, 290 Or App at 523 (describing the men- tal state element from ORS 260.532 as similar to the “actual malice” standard from a defamation action). 534 Waggoner v. Husk There is evidence that defendant worked as a firefighter for the Baker City Fire Department from 2020 to July 2022, was involved in union negotiations with the city regarding the fire department, and attended multiple city council meet- ings relating to the April 2022 vote.6 The record supports a reasonable inference that he knew that the city council did not vote to dissolve the fire department. 2018She identified only her replies in opposition to the motion, filed at the "end of January." The trial court in this case made its ruling before the Supreme Court decided Handy , "which clarified the requirements for a [party] seeking to survive an anti-SLAPP motion." Wingard , 290 Or. | 2 | 3 |
Yes on 24-367 Committee v. Deatongreen2 sentences2025See Yes on 24-367 Committee, 276 Or App at 354 (reversing the grant of an anti-SLAPP motion, where the defendants stated in the voters’ pamphlet, “This bond levy will DOUBLE the Fire District Tax assessments for the next 20 Years[,]” a false statement that was “unmistakably factual” and thus action- able, notwithstanding that “most of the content of the voters’ pamphlet statement reflects defendants’ subjective views that the proposed measure is unnecessary and wasteful— pure expressions of political opinion” (emphasis in original)). 2025See Yes on 24-367 Committee, 276 Or App at 354 (reversing the grant of an anti-SLAPP motion, where the defendants stated in the voters’ pamphlet, “This bond levy will DOUBLE the Fire District Tax assessments for the next 20 Years[,]” a false statement that was “unmistakably factual” and thus action- able, notwithstanding that “most of the content of the voters’ pamphlet statement reflects defendants’ subjective views that the proposed measure is unnecessary and wasteful— pure expressions of political opinion” (emphasis in original)). | 2 | 2 |
Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Assn. v. Chingreen2 sentences2021The majority reasons that a defendant who is voluntarily dismissed from a lawsuit after filing an anti- SLAPP motion does not “prevail” and is therefore not enti- tled to attorney fees, if the plaintiff offers reasons for dis- missal unrelated to the SLAPP motion. 316 Or App at 516. 2021Cite as 316 Or App 514 (2021) 527 The text of ORS 31.152(3) provides that “[a] defen- dant who prevails on a special motion to strike made under ORS 31.150 shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs,” but it does not elaborate on the meaning of “prevails.” (Emphasis added.) The majority reasons that a defendant cannot be said to have “prevailed” on the motion where the plaintiff’s dismissal of the underlying lawsuit is not related to the anti-SLAPP motion. 316 Or App at 520. | 1 | 2 |
Neumann v. Lilesgreen2 sentences2018The Supreme Court then allowed review of our decision "to determine how an actionable statement of fact is distinguished from a constitutionally protected expression of opinion in a defamation claim and whether the context in which a statement is made affects that analysis." Neumann II , 358 Or. at 710 , 369 P.3d 1117 . 2018The Supreme Court then allowed review of our decision "to determine how an actionable statement of fact is distinguished from a constitutionally protected expression of opinion in a defamation claim and whether the context in which a statement is made affects that analysis." Neumann II , 358 Or. at 710 , 369 P.3d 1117 . | 1 | 2 |
Neumann v. Lilesgreen2 sentences2016See Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or App 567 , 580 n 8, 323 P3d 521 (2014), rav’d, 358 Or 706 , 369 P3d 1117 (2016) (“We save for another day the question of whether and to what extent ORS 31.150 authorizes parties to litigate affirmative defenses in the context of a special motion to strike.”). 2016See Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or App 567 , 580 n 8, 323 P3d 521 (2014), rav’d, 358 Or 706 , 369 P3d 1117 (2016) (“We save for another day the question of whether and to what extent ORS 31.150 authorizes parties to litigate affirmative defenses in the context of a special motion to strike.”). | 1 | 2 |
Mouktabis v. Clackamas County Assessorgreen2 sentences2026Defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to strike under ORS 31.150 App 226, 563 P3d 1003 (2025) (reversed and remanded; Mouktabis sued after being arrested for allegedly violating a restraining order and subsequently being acquitted of doing so); Mouktabis v. Clackamas County, 327 Or App 763 , 536 P3d 1037 (2023), rev den 372 Or 290 (motion to dismiss denied; motion for sanctions denied; motions for ORS 19.360 review denied; supplemental money judgments vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed. 2026Defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to strike under ORS 31.150 App 226, 563 P3d 1003 (2025) (reversed and remanded; Mouktabis sued after being arrested for allegedly violating a restraining order and subsequently being acquitted of doing so); Mouktabis v. Clackamas County, 327 Or App 763 , 536 P3d 1037 (2023), rev den 372 Or 290 (motion to dismiss denied; motion for sanctions denied; motions for ORS 19.360 review denied; supplemental money judgments vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
Horton v. Western Protector Insurancegreen2 sentences2026See Horton v. Western Protector Insurance Company, 217 Or App 443, 452-53 , 176 P3d 419 (2008) (determining that anti-SLAPP motion filed after the defendant had answered should have been denied). 2026See Horton v. Western Protector Insurance Company, 217 Or App 443, 452-53 , 176 P3d 419 (2008) (determining that anti-SLAPP motion filed after the defendant had answered should have been denied). | 1 | 1 |
Erickson for Congress Com. v. Salinas for Oregon Com.green2 sentences2025See Erickson for Congress Com. v. Salinas for Oregon Com., 337 Or App 493 , ___, ___ P3d ___ (2025) (noting the absence of countervailing evidence from the record before the court on an anti-SLAPP motion). 5 Plaintiffs argue that defendant mischaracterizes the mental state element of ORS 260.532 as “actual malice.” We take the culpable mental state from the text of ORS 260.532 but note that it is substantially similar to the “actual malice” standard in defamation law. 2025See Erickson for Congress Com. v. Salinas for Oregon Com., 337 Or App 493 , ___, ___ P3d ___ (2025) (noting the absence of countervailing evidence from the record before the court on an anti-SLAPP motion). 5 Plaintiffs argue that defendant mischaracterizes the mental state element of ORS 260.532 as “actual malice.” We take the culpable mental state from the text of ORS 260.532 but note that it is substantially similar to the “actual malice” standard in defamation law. | 1 | 1 |
Page v. Parsonsgreen2 sentences2023See Page v. Parsons, 249 Or App 445, 447 , 277 P3d 609 (2012) (affirming grant of anti-SLAPP motion on a claim for abuse of process); see also Mohabeer v. Farmers Ins. 2023See Page v. Parsons, 249 Or App 445, 447 , 277 P3d 609 (2012) (affirming grant of anti-SLAPP motion on a claim for abuse of process); see also Mohabeer v. Farmers Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 787182green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gainesgreen | 1 | 1 |
S. B. Beach Properties v. Bertigreen2 sentences2021Permitting defendants to recover attorney fees and costs without filing a viable anti-SLAPP motion would only prolong and likely increase the overall costs of SLAPP litigation.” Id. 2021Beach Properties v. Berti, 39 Cal 4th 374, 381 & n 2, 138 P3d 713 , 717 & n 2 (2006) (acknowledging Courts of Appeal decisions allowing attorney fees notwithstanding a volun- tary dismissal, but declining to extend those decisions to cases where the defendant had not yet filed a potentially meritorious anti-SLAPP motion). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rogersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carroll v. Department of Public Safety Standards & Traininggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Oregon Education Ass'n v. Parksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Navellier v. Sletten
green
2 sentences2026See O&C Creditors Grp., LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC, 42 Cal App 5th 546, 568-69, 255 Cal Rptr 3d 596 (2019) (negotiation and execution of a settlement agreement are protected activities under California’s anti-SLAPP statute); Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal 4th 82, 90, 124 Cal Rptr 2d 530, 52 P3d 703 (2002) (finding the defendant’s negotiation and execution of a release to be protected activity); Seltzer v. Barnes, 182 Cal App 4th 953, 972-73, 106 Cal Rptr 3d 290, rev den (2010) (reversing denial of anti-SLAPP motion in homeowner’s action for fraud in connection with settlement negotiatio 2024In Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal 4th 82, 52 P3d 703 (2002), the California Supreme Court dis- cussed its anti-SLAPP statute, recognizing that a release of protected rights can be sufficient to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion. “[A]s the [anti-SLAPP] statute is designed and as we have construed it, a defendant who in fact has validly contracted not to speak or petition has in effect ‘waived’ the right to the anti-SLAPP statute’s protection in the event he or she later breaches that contract.” Id. at 94, 52 P3d at 712 . | 3 | 2024–2026 |
Davoodian v. Rivera
green
2 sentences2026In fact, Removes quote; “not a plausible 32, 191 P3d 778 Staten does not reframes as broad reading of (2008): Quote even involve public/private Staten, which that “private, workplace or distinction. focused on employment- employment the issue of related disputes” matters[.]” reviewability are not matters * * *.” of public interest, even though the employer was a public body Tubra v. Cooke, n/a Omitted Order: Quote 233 Or App does not 339, 225 P3d exist; case did 862 (2010): not involve Quote about anti-SLAPP “information received from others” and employer’s claim surviving anti- SLAPP motion 5 2026In fact, Removes quote; “not a plausible 32, 191 P3d 778 Staten does not reframes as broad reading of (2008): Quote even involve public/private Staten, which that “private, workplace or distinction. focused on employment- employment the issue of related disputes” matters[.]” reviewability are not matters * * *.” of public interest, even though the employer was a public body Tubra v. Cooke, n/a Omitted Order: Quote 233 Or App does not 339, 225 P3d exist; case did 862 (2010): not involve Quote about anti-SLAPP “information received from others” and employer’s claim surviving anti- SLAPP motion 5 | 3 | 2025–2026 |
Young v. Davis
green
2 sentences2025Defendants must first establish that “the claim against which the motion is made arises out of one or more protected activities.” Young v. Davis, 259 Or App 497, 501 , 314 P3d 350 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2025Defendants must first establish that “the claim against which the motion is made arises out of one or more protected activities.” Young v. Davis, 259 Or App 497, 501 , 314 P3d 350 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 3 | 2016–2025 |
Waggoner v. Husk
green
2 sentences2025The court explained, “When you dissolve a fire department, unless other contexts exist, there is no way to understand it, except the fire department has been terminated or ceased to exist.” Further, the record was “clear” that defendant “knew the fire department did not dissolve.” At the same time, the court concluded that the attached participial phrase “destroying the network of public safety that has been in place for more than 100 Cite as 337 Or App 519 (2025) 525 years” was nonactionable opinion, given the hyperbolic use of “destroying.” ANALYSIS On appeal, defendant challenges the denial 2025The court explained, “When you dissolve a fire department, unless other contexts exist, there is no way to understand it, except the fire department has been terminated or ceased to exist.” Further, the record was “clear” that defendant “knew the fire department did not dissolve.” At the same time, the court concluded that the attached participial phrase “destroying the network of public safety that has been in place for more than 100 Cite as 337 Or App 519 (2025) 525 years” was nonactionable opinion, given the hyperbolic use of “destroying.” ANALYSIS On appeal, defendant challenges the denial | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Kioroglo v. Bustos Media Holding, LLC
neutral
2 sentences2025Because plaintiff did not present substantial Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 148 (2025) 151 evidence to establish a prima facie case of success on the merits of his claims, the trial court did not err when it granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. 2025Because plaintiff did not present substantial Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 148 (2025) 151 evidence to establish a prima facie case of success on the merits of his claims, the trial court did not err when it granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Neumann v. Liles
green
2 sentences2023Relevant to this case is ORS 31.150(2)(d), which “broadly authorizes the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion ‘against any claim in a civil action that arises out of * * * [a]ny * * * conduct in furtherance of * * * the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.’ ”16 Neumann v. Liles, 295 Or App 340, 344 , 434 P3d 438 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 195 (2019) (quot- ing ORS 31.150(2)(d); omissions and brackets in Neumann). 2023Relevant to this case is ORS 31.150(2)(d), which “broadly authorizes the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion ‘against any claim in a civil action that arises out of * * * [a]ny * * * conduct in furtherance of * * * the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.’ ”16 Neumann v. Liles, 295 Or App 340, 344 , 434 P3d 438 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 195 (2019) (quot- ing ORS 31.150(2)(d); omissions and brackets in Neumann). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Robinson v. DeFazio
green
2 sentences2023“In determining a reasonable attorney fee award under ORS 31.152(3), the trial court must consider factors enumer- ated in ORS 20.075.” Robinson v. DeFazio, 284 Or App 98, 103 , 392 P3d 781 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 286 Or App 709 , 399 P3d 1095 , rev den, 362 Or 175 (2017). 2017In our prior decision, we stated that the higher prevailing party fee was appropriate because “the trial court examined issues of law and fact to grant defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion.” Robinson, 284 Or App at 110 . | 2 | 2017–2023 |
Brown v. Gatti
green
2 sentences2026In fact, Removes quote; “not a plausible 32, 191 P3d 778 Staten does not reframes as broad reading of (2008): Quote even involve public/private Staten, which that “private, workplace or distinction. focused on employment- employment the issue of related disputes” matters[.]” reviewability are not matters * * *.” of public interest, even though the employer was a public body Tubra v. Cooke, n/a Omitted Order: Quote 233 Or App does not 339, 225 P3d exist; case did 862 (2010): not involve Quote about anti-SLAPP “information received from others” and employer’s claim surviving anti- SLAPP motion 5 2026In fact, Removes quote; “not a plausible 32, 191 P3d 778 Staten does not reframes as broad reading of (2008): Quote even involve public/private Staten, which that “private, workplace or distinction. focused on employment- employment the issue of related disputes” matters[.]” reviewability are not matters * * *.” of public interest, even though the employer was a public body Tubra v. Cooke, n/a Omitted Order: Quote 233 Or App does not 339, 225 P3d exist; case did 862 (2010): not involve Quote about anti-SLAPP “information received from others” and employer’s claim surviving anti- SLAPP motion 5 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Staten v. Steel
green
1 sentence2026In fact, Removes quote; “not a plausible 32, 191 P3d 778 Staten does not reframes as broad reading of (2008): Quote even involve public/private Staten, which that “private, workplace or distinction. focused on employment- employment the issue of related disputes” matters[.]” reviewability are not matters * * *.” of public interest, even though the employer was a public body Tubra v. Cooke, n/a Omitted Order: Quote 233 Or App does not 339, 225 P3d exist; case did 862 (2010): not involve Quote about anti-SLAPP “information received from others” and employer’s claim surviving anti- SLAPP motion 5 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Mouktabis v. Oregon City Police Dept.
green
1 sentence2026Defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to strike under ORS 31.150 App 226, 563 P3d 1003 (2025) (reversed and remanded; Mouktabis sued after being arrested for allegedly violating a restraining order and subsequently being acquitted of doing so); Mouktabis v. Clackamas County, 327 Or App 763 , 536 P3d 1037 (2023), rev den 372 Or 290 (motion to dismiss denied; motion for sanctions denied; motions for ORS 19.360 review denied; supplemental money judgments vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10839327
neutral
1 sentence2026See O&C Creditors Grp., LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC, 42 Cal App 5th 546, 568-69, 255 Cal Rptr 3d 596 (2019) (negotiation and execution of a settlement agreement are protected activities under California’s anti-SLAPP statute); Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal 4th 82, 90, 124 Cal Rptr 2d 530, 52 P3d 703 (2002) (finding the defendant’s negotiation and execution of a release to be protected activity); Seltzer v. Barnes, 182 Cal App 4th 953, 972-73, 106 Cal Rptr 3d 290, rev den (2010) (reversing denial of anti-SLAPP motion in homeowner’s action for fraud in connection with settlement negotiatio | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10850332
neutral
1 sentence2026But the trial court was also free to consider that Mouktabis had three times sued Faber as a result of her representation of M, with each prior suit being Cite as 349 Or App 93 (2026) 103 dismissed as the result of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10862981
neutral
1 sentence2026Nonprecedential Memo Op: 349 Or App 769 (2026) 773 we conclude that the trial court did not err. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Mohabeer v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
green
2 sentences2023Exchange, 318 Or App 313, 320 , 508 P3d 37 , rev den, 370 Or 212 (2022) (trial court erred in denying anti-SLAPP motion because plaintiff had “not met his burden to present prima facie evidence of a lack of prob- able cause.”). 2023Exchange, 318 Or App 313, 320 , 508 P3d 37 , rev den, 370 Or 212 (2022) (trial court erred in denying anti-SLAPP motion because plaintiff had “not met his burden to present prima facie evidence of a lack of prob- able cause.”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Robinson v. DeFazio
neutral
2 sentences2023“In determining a reasonable attorney fee award under ORS 31.152(3), the trial court must consider factors enumer- ated in ORS 20.075.” Robinson v. DeFazio, 284 Or App 98, 103 , 392 P3d 781 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 286 Or App 709 , 399 P3d 1095 , rev den, 362 Or 175 (2017). 2023“In determining a reasonable attorney fee award under ORS 31.152(3), the trial court must consider factors enumer- ated in ORS 20.075.” Robinson v. DeFazio, 284 Or App 98, 103 , 392 P3d 781 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 286 Or App 709 , 399 P3d 1095 , rev den, 362 Or 175 (2017). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
C.I.C.S. Emp't Servs., Inc. v. Newport Newspapers, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021A court “may not arbitrarily grant or deny permission to file an untimely anti-SLAPP motion,” Newport Newspapers, 291 Or App at 326 , but the statute does not require the trial court to deter- mine if there is valid excuse for the filing of an untimely motion. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Bryant v. Recall for Lowell's Future Committee green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| South Sutter, LLC v. Lj Sutter Partners, L.P green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Paul v. Providence Health System-Oregon green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Hammond v. Central Lane Communications Center green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.