Dixon v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
30 Cal. App. 4th 733, 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 687 (1994)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Keith Dixon (defendant) was an archaeologist and anthropology professor at California State University at Long Beach (CSULB). Upon Dixon’s nomination, a portion of campus believed to be part of an ancient Native American village was included on the National Register of Historic Places. Dixon later criticized an archaeological report by Scientific Resources Surveys (SRS) (plaintiff) that was favorable to CSULB’s plan to build a Japanese garden on the site. Years later, CSULB planned to build a strip mall and parking lot on the site. California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required a site study. Dixon maintained that a report declaring the environment would not be negatively affected was based on an earlier sub-professional and error-filled report. Dixon continued to criticize SRS’s work and its effect on the proposed construction project. SRS sued Dixon for libel, slander, and interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage. Dixon moved to strike the complaint as a SLAPP suit, contending that his statements were for the purpose of participating in the CEQA public-comment and review process and were entitled to absolute immunity under the First Amendment. The trial court denied Dixon’s motion to strike the complaint. Dixon filed a petition for a writ of mandate.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wallin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.