Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title II Chapter 231
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 59H (2026)

Strategic litigation against public participation; special motion to dismiss

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 59H. In any case, except a case brought pursuant to section 11I1/2 of chapter 12, in which a party asserts that the civil claims, counterclaims, or cross claims against said party are based on said party's exercise of its right of petition under the constitution of the United States or of the commonwealth, said party may bring a special motion to dismiss. The court shall advance any such special motion so that it may be heard and determined as expeditiously as possible. The court shall grant such special motion, unless the party against whom such special motion is made shows that: (1) the moving party's exercise of its right to petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law and (2) the moving party's acts caused actual injury to the responding party. In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.

The attorney general, on his behalf or on behalf of any government agency or subdivision to which the moving party's acts were directed, may intervene to defend or otherwise support the moving party on such special motion.

All discovery proceedings shall be stayed upon the filing of the special motion under this section; provided, however, that the court, on motion and after a hearing and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the special motion.

Said special motion to dismiss may be filed within sixty days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper.

If the court grants such special motion to dismiss, the court shall award the moving party costs and reasonable attorney's fees, including those incurred for the special motion and any related discovery matters. Nothing in this section shall affect or preclude the right of the moving party to any remedy otherwise authorized by law.

As used in this section, the words ''a party's exercise of its right of petition'' shall mean any written or oral statement made before or submitted to a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other governmental proceeding; any written or oral statement made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other governmental proceeding; any statement reasonably likely to encourage consideration or review of an issue by a legislative, executive, or judicial body or any other governmental proceeding; any statement reasonably likely to enlist public participation in an effort to effect such consideration; or any other statement falling within constitutional protection of the right to petition government.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 296 cases (59 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Kobrin v. Gastfriend, 821 N.E.2d 60 (Mass. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kobrin v. Gastfriend, 821 N.E.2d 60 (Mass. 2005). · cites it 23× “The defendant’s special motion to dismiss pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 59H (the “anti-SLAPP” statute), was allowed by a Superior Court judge.”
Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 75 N.E.3d 21 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 12× “The hospital defendants 4 responded by filing a special motion to dismiss the defamation claim pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 59H, *143 the “anti-SLAPP” statute.”
Off. One, Inc. v. Lopez, 437 Mass. 113 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 16× “In addition, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay attomey’s fees and costs to all but two of the defendants, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 59H, commonly known as the anti-SLAPP statute.”
North Am. Expositions Co. v. Corcoran, 452 Mass. 852 (Mass. 2009). · cites it 17× “In this case we consider whether a complaint against the owners and operators of a convention center was properly dismissed under G. L. c. 231, § 59H. This statute, commonly known as the “anti-SLAPP” (“strategic litigation against public participation”) statute, 4 is intended to…”
Cardno ChemRisk, LLC v. Foytlin, 68 N.E.3d 1180 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 15× “2 The defendants filed a special motion to dismiss the Massachusetts suit under G. L. c. 231, § 59H, the “anti-SLAPP” statute.”
Baker v. Parsons, 750 N.E.2d 953 (Mass. 2001). · cites it 11× “The plaintiff, a property owner in Plymouth, appeals from the decision of a Superior Court judge granting the defendants’ special motion to dismiss his lawsuit, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 59H, commonly known as the anti-SLAPP statute.”
477 Harrison Ave., LLC v. JACE Boston, LLC, 74 N.E.3d 1237 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 8× “This case involves the application of G. L. c. 231, § 59H, the “anti-SLAPP” statute, to a dispute between adjoining building owners.”
Fabre v. Walton, 781 N.E.2d 780 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 8× “Walton filed an unsuccessful special motion to dismiss pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 59H (commonly known as the anti-SLAJPP statute), and appealed the denial of that motion to the county court pursuant to G.”
Van Liew v. Stansfield, 47 N.E.3d 411 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 7× “In this case we first consider a procedural issue concerning the appropriate forum to hear appeals from the allowance of a special motion to dismiss under G. L. c. 231, § 59H *32 (§ 59H), the so-called “anti-SLAPP” 1 statute, by a judge in the District Court.”
McLarnon v. Jokisch, 727 N.E.2d 813 (Mass. 2000). · cites it 13× “The plaintiff appeals from the decision of a Superior Court judge granting the defendants’ special motion to dismiss, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 59H. The judge declined to grant the defendants’ motion for costs and attorney’s fees.”
MacDonald v. Paton, 782 N.E.2d 1089 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 13× “Patón filed a special motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 59H, popularly known as the “anti-SLAPP” statute.”
Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 130 N.E.3d 1242 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 9× “**201 This is the second time the defendants have appealed from the denial of their special motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' defamation claim, pursuant to the "anti-SLAPP" statute, G. L. c. 231, § 59H. 3 See Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hospital, Inc .”
Show all 296 citing cases →
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.