Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 34-7-7-5 (2026)

Conditions under which rights of petition or free speech may be used as defense

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 5. It is a defense in a civil action against a person that the act or omission complained of is:

(1) an act or omission of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana in connection with a public issue; and

(2) an act or omission taken in good faith and with a reasonable basis in law and fact.

As added by P.L.114-1998, SEC.7.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Paul Gresk, Tr. for the Bankr. Est. of Derek VanWinkle & Stacey VanWinkle on behalf of M v. & A v. their minor Child. v. Cortney Demetris, M.D., 96 N.E.3d 564 (Ind. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Paul Gresk, Tr. for the Bankr. Est. of Derek VanWinkle & Stacey VanWinkle on behalf of M v. & A v. their minor Child. v. Cortney Demetris, M.D., 96 N.E.3d 564 (Ind. 2018). · cites it 8× “" Ind. Code § 34-7-7-5 (2017). Facts and Procedural History Stacey VanWinkle, a neonatal-intensive-care-unit nurse, and Derek VanWinkle, a stay-at-home father, have two children, A.”

Janice Brandom v. Coupled Prods., LLC, 975 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 15× “1 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Brandom was an employee of Coupled Products. Coupled’s hourly employees are represented by UAW Local 2049 (“the Local”), and Brandom was chair of the Local’s bargaining committee.”

401 Pub. Saf. & Lifeline Data Centers, LLC v. David Ray & the Comm. to Elect David Ray, 80 N.E.3d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 34-7-7-5. [10] The Anti-SLAPP statute is intended to reduce the number of lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.”

Nikish Software Corp. v. Manatron, Inc., 801 F. Supp. 2d 791 (S.D. Ind. 2011). · cites it 4× “See Ind.Code § 34-7-7-5; Nexus, 942 N.E.2d at 122 (statute is designed to combat "[sjtrategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs),'' which are "meritless suits aimed at silencing a plaintiff's opponents, or at least diverting their resources.”

Poulard v. Lauth, 793 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “All defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Ind.Code § 34-7-7-5 (the "anti-SLAPP" statute) 2 and their motions were granted on May 22, 2001.”

Kevin Pack v. Truth Publ'g Co., Inc., & John S. Dille III, 122 N.E.3d 958 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 34-7-7-5. Thus, the Anti-SLAPP statutes create an affirmative defense.”

Nexus Grp., Inc. v. Heritage Appraisal Serv., 942 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 34-7-7-5. “Good faith,” in the context of defamation law, is defined as “a state of mind indicating honesty and lawfulness of purpose; belief in one’s legal right; and a belief that one’s conduct is not unconscionable.”

Michael A. Wartell v. Lawrence H. Lee, 47 N.E.3d 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “The Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) Statute is codified in Indiana Code section 34-7-7-5 and provides that "[i]t is a defense in a civil action against a person that the act or omission complained of is: (1) an act or omission of that person in…”

Kadambi v. Express Scripts, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 3d 900 (N.D. Ind. 2015). · cites it 2× “*908 Ind.Code § 34-7-7-5. If successful in having a claim dismissed under the act, the defendant is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

Paul Gresk, Tr. for the Bankr. Est. of Derek VanWinkle & Stacey VanWinkle on behalf of M v. & A v. their minor Child. v. Cortney Demetris, M.D., 81 N.E.3d 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “The statute specifically provides: It is a defense in a civil action against a person that the act or omission complained of is: *651 (1) an act [8] or omission of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the Constitution of the United…”

Kurt Disser & Sabrina Graham v. Jennifer Cox (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8× “at 568-69 (quoting Ind. Code § 34-7-7-5 ). “Defendants who successfully invoke the statute’s defense are entitled to dismissal and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”

Circle City Broad. I, LLC v. At&t Servs., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2021). · cites it 8× “55), and one filed pursuant to Indiana's anti-SLAPP statute, Ind. Code § 34-7-7-5 , -9 (Filing No. 57).”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— Ind. Code § 34-7-7-5(1) — 1 case

Paul Gresk, Tr. for the Bankr. Est. of Derek VanWinkle & Stacey VanWinkle on behalf of M v. & A v. their minor Child. v. Cortney Demetris, M.D., 96 N.E.3d 564 (Ind. 2018). “" Ind. Code § 34-7-7-5 (2017). Facts and Procedural History Stacey VanWinkle, a neonatal-intensive-care-unit nurse, and Derek VanWinkle, a stay-at-home father, have two children, A.”

— Ind. Code § 34-7-7-5(2) — 3 cases

Janice Brandom v. Coupled Prods., LLC, 975 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “1 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Brandom was an employee of Coupled Products. Coupled’s hourly employees are represented by UAW Local 2049 (“the Local”), and Brandom was chair of the Local’s bargaining committee.”

Circle City Broad. I, LLC v. At&t Servs., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2021). “55), and one filed pursuant to Indiana's anti-SLAPP statute, Ind. Code § 34-7-7-5 , -9 (Filing No. 57).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.