kind of statutory analysis in Georgia

2024Therefore, we look to the elements of defamation to determine whether Plaintiffs have met this standard. 3 Because of similarities between Georgia’s and California’s anti-SLAPP statutes, “we may look to California case law . . . for guidance, especially decisions — such as the ones cited in this opinion — that employ the same kind of statutory analysis that we generally use.” Wilkes, 306 Ga. at 257-258 (2). 9 A cause of action for defamation consists of four elements: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party; (3) fault by

2021Thus, in interpreting our new OCGA § 9-11-11.1, we may look to California case law . . . for guidance, especially decisions . . . that employ the same kind of statutory analysis that we generally use.” Wilkes & McHugh, P.A., supra, 306 Ga. at 257-258 (2). 16 implicates—a question [they] answer by looking to the content of the speech.

2019Cf., e.g., Chappuis v. Ortho Sport & Spine Physicians Savannah, LLC , 305 Ga. 401 , 404 & n.4, 825 S.E.2d 206 (2019) (looking to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (f) and the federal decisions thereunder "to aid us in determining the purpose and meaning of" a provision of the Civil Practice Act modeled on the federal rule); Zaldivar v. Prickett , 297 Ga. 589 , 598-600, 774 S.E.2d 688 (2015) (looking to decisions in other jurisdictions with similar apportionment statutes in interpreting Georgia's apportionment statute, including California, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, a

2019Cf., e.g., Chappuis v. Ortho Sport & Spine Physicians Savannah, LLC , 305 Ga. 401 , 404 & n.4, 825 S.E.2d 206 (2019) (looking to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (f) and the federal decisions thereunder "to aid us in determining the purpose and meaning of" a provision of the Civil Practice Act modeled on the federal rule); Zaldivar v. Prickett , 297 Ga. 589 , 598-600, 774 S.E.2d 688 (2015) (looking to decisions in other jurisdictions with similar apportionment statutes in interpreting Georgia's apportionment statute, including California, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, a

2025See also Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Ca.App.4th. 883, 899-900 (III) (B) ( 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 ) (quality of seller’s products was an issue of public concern); Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 23-24 (II) ( 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 752 ) (2007) (plastic surgery patient’s website created to relate her bad experience with well known surgeon concerned ‘matter of public interest’ within meaning of anti-SLAPP statute).

2025See also Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Ca.App.4th. 883, 899-900 (III) (B) ( 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 ) (quality of seller’s products was an issue of public concern); Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 23-24 (II) ( 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 752 ) (2007) (plastic surgery patient’s website created to relate her bad experience with well known surgeon concerned ‘matter of public interest’ within meaning of anti-SLAPP statute).

2025See also Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Ca.App.4th. 883, 899-900 (III) (B) ( 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 ) (quality of seller’s products was an issue of public concern); Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 23-24 (II) ( 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 752 ) (2007) (plastic surgery patient’s website created to relate her bad experience with well known surgeon concerned ‘matter of public interest’ within meaning of anti-SLAPP statute).

2024Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Pardue, 310 Ga. App. 355, 356 (1) ( 713 SE2d 456 ) (2011) (citation and punctuation omitted).4 The trial court found that Boley’s accusations of extortion and violating DOD regulations could reasonably be interpreted to state or imply defamatory facts about Plaintiffs at least to the extent they would tend to injure the business, which can constitute defamation per se.

2024Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Pardue, 310 Ga. App. 355, 356 (1) ( 713 SE2d 456 ) (2011) (citation and punctuation omitted).4 The trial court found that Boley’s accusations of extortion and violating DOD regulations could reasonably be interpreted to state or imply defamatory facts about Plaintiffs at least to the extent they would tend to injure the business, which can constitute defamation per se.