§ 1041. Exercise of rights to free speech and to petition government for redress of grievances;
special motion to strike
(a) A defendant in an action arising from the defendant’s exercise, in connection with
a public issue, of the right to freedom of speech or to petition the government for
redress of grievances under the U.S. or Vermont Constitution may file a special motion
to strike under this section.
(b) A special motion to strike under this section shall be filed with the court and served
on all parties not more than 60 days after the filing of the complaint. A party may
file a response to the motion not more than 15 days after the motion is served on
the party. The court may extend the time limits of this subsection for good cause
shown.
(c)(1) The filing of a special motion to strike under this section shall stay all discovery
proceedings in the action. Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection,
the stay of discovery shall remain in effect until the court rules on the special
motion to strike.
(2) The court, on motion and for good cause shown, may order that limited discovery be
conducted for the purpose of assisting its decision on the special motion to strike.
(d) The court shall hold a hearing on a special motion to strike not more than 30 days
after service of the motion unless good cause exists for an extension.
(e)(1) The court shall grant the special motion to strike, unless the plaintiff shows that:
(A) the defendant’s exercise of his or her right to freedom of speech and to petition
was devoid of any reasonable factual support and any arguable basis in law; and
(B) the defendant’s acts caused actual injury to the plaintiff.
(2) 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.
(f)(1) If the court grants the special motion to strike, the court shall award costs and
reasonable attorney’s fees to the defendant. If the court denies the special motion
to strike and finds the motion is frivolous or is intended solely to cause unnecessary
delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the plaintiff.
(2) Neither the court’s ruling on the special motion to strike nor the fact that it made
such a ruling shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, and
no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by the
ruling.
(g) An order granting or denying a special motion to strike shall be appealable in the
same manner as an interlocutory order under Rule 5 of the Vermont Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
(h) This section shall not apply to:
(1) any enforcement action or criminal proceeding brought by the State of Vermont or any
political subdivision thereof; or
(2) a case involving tortious interference with legally protected health care as provided
in section 7302 of this title.
(i) As used in this section, “the exercise, in connection with a public issue, of the
right to freedom of speech or to petition the government for redress of grievances
under the U.S. or Vermont Constitution” includes:
(1) any written or oral statement made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding,
or any other official proceeding authorized by law;
(2) 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 official proceeding
authorized by law;
(3) any written or oral statement concerning an issue of public interest made in a public
forum or a place open to the public; or
(4) any other statement or conduct concerning a public issue or an issue of public interest
that furthers the exercise of the constitutional right of freedom of speech or the
constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances. (Added 2005, No. 134 (Adj. Sess.), § 2; amended 2023, No. 14, § 2, eff. May 10, 2023.)
Garrett M. Cornelius v. The Chronicle, Inc., 206 A.3d 710 (Vt. 2019). · cites it 10דThese consolidated cases raise issues concerning Vermont's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. Plaintiff Garrett Cornelius filed suit alleging invasion of privacy by newspaper, The Chronicle, after newspaper published two…”
Ernst v. Carrigan, 814 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2016). · cites it 7דSupeno’s claims pursuant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. The motions sought to strike allegations relating to: (i) the April 2011 letter, (ii) the statements made before the Selectboard, (iii) the document presented to the Selectboard, and (iv) the letter to…”
Kenneth P. Felis v. Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, & Gallagher, Flynn & Co., LLP, 2015 VT 129 (Vt. 2015). · cites it 8דGFC cross-appeals the superior court’s denial of its motion to strike pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 1041. 1 We affirm. ¶ 2. Plaintiffs complaint alleges the following, as relevant to this appeal.”
Draxxion Talandar v. Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy, 2024 VT 86 (Vt. 2024). · cites it 13דPlaintiff Draxxion Talandar appeals from a civil division order granting judgment on the pleadings to defendant Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy and awarding her attorney’s fees under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. In…”
Soojung Jang v. Trs. of St. Johnsbury Acad., 331 F. Supp. 3d 312 (D. Vt. 2018). · cites it 14ד) Presently before the Court is the Academy and KDC's Joint Motion to Strike the Complaint pursuant to Vermont's anti-SLAPP statute, Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 12, § 1041 (2006), (Doc.”
Kyle Wolfe v. VT Digger, 2023 VT 50 (Vt. 2023). · cites it 7דIt is now well-settled under our law that when a defendant files both a motion to dismiss and a special motion to strike the complaint under 12 V.S.A. § 1041, “granting [the] motion to dismiss does not moot the motion to strike because the issue of attorney’s fees remains a live…”
Kristina J. Polak & Stephen M. Polak v. Felipe Ramirez-Diaz & Yesica Sanchez, 2025 VT 9 (Vt. 2025). · cites it 7דPlaintiffs appeal the trial court’s order granting defendants’ special motion to strike plaintiffs’ claims of defamation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) pursuant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP law, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. Plaintiffs also…”
Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic, 98 F.4th 1320 (10th Cir. 2024). “at 120 (quoting Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1041 (e)). Because such an “analysis is entangled in the facts,” the court ruled that the denial of motions to dismiss under anti-SLAPP statutes are “not ‘completely separate from the merits’ of a plaintiff’s action,” and thus are not…”
Ernst v. Kauffman, 50 F. Supp. 3d 553 (2014). · cites it 10ד48), respectively, to strike plaintiffs’ complaint pursu *557 ant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. The third is a motion to dismiss Count IV of plaintiffs’ amended complaint on the grounds that it is barred by the statute of limitations, filed by defendants…”
polak v. ramirez-diaz (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 12דSanchez, and one count of defamation, one count of intentional iniction of emotional distress, and one count of malicious prosecution against both DefendantsA hearing was held on the special motion to strike on June 16, 2021.”
talander v. manchester-murphy (Vt. Super. Ct. 2023). · cites it 8דShe also contends that this lawsuit should be characterized as a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” and that the complaint should be dismissed under the provisions of 12 V.S.A. § 1041. In response, plaintiff contends that: (1) the absolute privilege does not apply…”
Garrett M. Cornelius v. The Chronicle, Inc., 206 A.3d 710 (Vt. 2019). “These consolidated cases raise issues concerning Vermont's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. Plaintiff Garrett Cornelius filed suit alleging invasion of privacy by newspaper, The Chronicle, after newspaper published two…”
Draxxion Talandar v. Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy, 2024 VT 86 (Vt. 2024). “Plaintiff Draxxion Talandar appeals from a civil division order granting judgment on the pleadings to defendant Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy and awarding her attorney’s fees under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. In…”
Kyle Wolfe v. VT Digger, 2023 VT 50 (Vt. 2023). “It is now well-settled under our law that when a defendant files both a motion to dismiss and a special motion to strike the complaint under 12 V.S.A. § 1041, “granting [the] motion to dismiss does not moot the motion to strike because the issue of attorney’s fees remains a live…”
Ernst v. Carrigan, 814 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2016). “Supeno’s claims pursuant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. The motions sought to strike allegations relating to: (i) the April 2011 letter, (ii) the statements made before the Selectboard, (iii) the document presented to the Selectboard, and (iv) the letter to…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1041(b) — 1 case
Ernst v. Kauffman, 50 F. Supp. 3d 553 (2014). “48), respectively, to strike plaintiffs’ complaint pursu *557 ant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. The third is a motion to dismiss Count IV of plaintiffs’ amended complaint on the grounds that it is barred by the statute of limitations, filed by defendants…”
talander v. manchester-murphy (Vt. Super. Ct. 2023). “She also contends that this lawsuit should be characterized as a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” and that the complaint should be dismissed under the provisions of 12 V.S.A. § 1041. In response, plaintiff contends that: (1) the absolute privilege does not apply…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1041(d) — 5 cases
Garrett M. Cornelius v. The Chronicle, Inc., 206 A.3d 710 (Vt. 2019). “These consolidated cases raise issues concerning Vermont's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. Plaintiff Garrett Cornelius filed suit alleging invasion of privacy by newspaper, The Chronicle, after newspaper published two…”
Draxxion Talandar v. Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy, 2024 VT 86 (Vt. 2024). “Plaintiff Draxxion Talandar appeals from a civil division order granting judgment on the pleadings to defendant Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy and awarding her attorney’s fees under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. In…”
Ernst v. Carrigan, 814 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2016). “Supeno’s claims pursuant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. The motions sought to strike allegations relating to: (i) the April 2011 letter, (ii) the statements made before the Selectboard, (iii) the document presented to the Selectboard, and (iv) the letter to…”
Draxxion Talandar v. Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy, 2024 VT 86 (Vt. 2024). “Plaintiff Draxxion Talandar appeals from a civil division order granting judgment on the pleadings to defendant Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy and awarding her attorney’s fees under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. In…”
talander v. manchester-murphy (Vt. Super. Ct. 2023). “She also contends that this lawsuit should be characterized as a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” and that the complaint should be dismissed under the provisions of 12 V.S.A. § 1041. In response, plaintiff contends that: (1) the absolute privilege does not apply…”
Ernst v. Kauffman, 50 F. Supp. 3d 553 (2014). “48), respectively, to strike plaintiffs’ complaint pursu *557 ant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. The third is a motion to dismiss Count IV of plaintiffs’ amended complaint on the grounds that it is barred by the statute of limitations, filed by defendants…”
talander v. manchester-murphy (Vt. Super. Ct. 2023). “She also contends that this lawsuit should be characterized as a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” and that the complaint should be dismissed under the provisions of 12 V.S.A. § 1041. In response, plaintiff contends that: (1) the absolute privilege does not apply…”
Garrett M. Cornelius v. The Chronicle, Inc., 206 A.3d 710 (Vt. 2019). “These consolidated cases raise issues concerning Vermont's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. Plaintiff Garrett Cornelius filed suit alleging invasion of privacy by newspaper, The Chronicle, after newspaper published two…”
Draxxion Talandar v. Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy, 2024 VT 86 (Vt. 2024). “Plaintiff Draxxion Talandar appeals from a civil division order granting judgment on the pleadings to defendant Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy and awarding her attorney’s fees under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. In…”
Ernst v. Carrigan, 814 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2016). “Supeno’s claims pursuant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. The motions sought to strike allegations relating to: (i) the April 2011 letter, (ii) the statements made before the Selectboard, (iii) the document presented to the Selectboard, and (iv) the letter to…”
Kyle Wolfe v. VT Digger, 2023 VT 50 (Vt. 2023). “It is now well-settled under our law that when a defendant files both a motion to dismiss and a special motion to strike the complaint under 12 V.S.A. § 1041, “granting [the] motion to dismiss does not moot the motion to strike because the issue of attorney’s fees remains a live…”
Ernst v. Carrigan, 814 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2016). “Supeno’s claims pursuant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. The motions sought to strike allegations relating to: (i) the April 2011 letter, (ii) the statements made before the Selectboard, (iii) the document presented to the Selectboard, and (iv) the letter to…”
Draxxion Talandar v. Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy, 2024 VT 86 (Vt. 2024). “Plaintiff Draxxion Talandar appeals from a civil division order granting judgment on the pleadings to defendant Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy and awarding her attorney’s fees under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. In…”
polak v. ramirez-diaz (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “Sanchez, and one count of defamation, one count of intentional iniction of emotional distress, and one count of malicious prosecution against both DefendantsA hearing was held on the special motion to strike on June 16, 2021.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1041(f) — 1 case
Kyle Wolfe v. VT Digger, 2023 VT 50 (Vt. 2023). “It is now well-settled under our law that when a defendant files both a motion to dismiss and a special motion to strike the complaint under 12 V.S.A. § 1041, “granting [the] motion to dismiss does not moot the motion to strike because the issue of attorney’s fees remains a live…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1041(f)(1) — 13 cases
Garrett M. Cornelius v. The Chronicle, Inc., 206 A.3d 710 (Vt. 2019). “These consolidated cases raise issues concerning Vermont's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. Plaintiff Garrett Cornelius filed suit alleging invasion of privacy by newspaper, The Chronicle, after newspaper published two…”
Kyle Wolfe v. VT Digger, 2023 VT 50 (Vt. 2023). “It is now well-settled under our law that when a defendant files both a motion to dismiss and a special motion to strike the complaint under 12 V.S.A. § 1041, “granting [the] motion to dismiss does not moot the motion to strike because the issue of attorney’s fees remains a live…”
Kristina J. Polak & Stephen M. Polak v. Felipe Ramirez-Diaz & Yesica Sanchez, 2025 VT 9 (Vt. 2025). “Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s order granting defendants’ special motion to strike plaintiffs’ claims of defamation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) pursuant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP law, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. Plaintiffs also…”
Kristina J. Polak & Stephen M. Polak v. Felipe Ramirez-Diaz & Yesica Sanchez, 2025 VT 9 (Vt. 2025). “Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s order granting defendants’ special motion to strike plaintiffs’ claims of defamation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) pursuant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP law, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. Plaintiffs also…”
polak v. ramirez-diaz (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “Sanchez, and one count of defamation, one count of intentional iniction of emotional distress, and one count of malicious prosecution against both DefendantsA hearing was held on the special motion to strike on June 16, 2021.”
Garrett M. Cornelius v. The Chronicle, Inc., 206 A.3d 710 (Vt. 2019). “These consolidated cases raise issues concerning Vermont's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. Plaintiff Garrett Cornelius filed suit alleging invasion of privacy by newspaper, The Chronicle, after newspaper published two…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1041(i)(3) — 2 cases
Kristina J. Polak & Stephen M. Polak v. Felipe Ramirez-Diaz & Yesica Sanchez, 2025 VT 9 (Vt. 2025). “Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s order granting defendants’ special motion to strike plaintiffs’ claims of defamation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) pursuant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP law, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. Plaintiffs also…”
polak v. ramirez-diaz (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “Sanchez, and one count of defamation, one count of intentional iniction of emotional distress, and one count of malicious prosecution against both DefendantsA hearing was held on the special motion to strike on June 16, 2021.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1041(i)(l) — 1 case
Ernst v. Kauffman, 50 F. Supp. 3d 553 (2014). “48), respectively, to strike plaintiffs’ complaint pursu *557 ant to Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. The third is a motion to dismiss Count IV of plaintiffs’ amended complaint on the grounds that it is barred by the statute of limitations, filed by defendants…”
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.