Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of April 22, 2013

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

In re Lipsky, No. 02-12-00348-CV (Apr. 22, 2013) (orig. proceeding) (Livingston, C.J., joined by Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.).

Held:  Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying relator Steven Lipsky's motion to dismiss under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (Texas's anti-SLAPP statute) as to two of Range's (the real parties in interest's) causes of action against him--defamation and business disparagement--because Range produced clear and specific evidence establishing a prima facie case for each essential element of those two claims. Relator Steven Lipsky is therefore not entitled to mandamus relief as to those two claims. As to Range's other claims against Steven Lipsky and all of Range's claims against relators Shyla Lipsky and Alisa Rich, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying relators' motions to dismiss those claims based on the facts presented in this record, that relators have no adequate remedy by appeal, and that the trial court must dismiss the claims.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «