From Tuesday's Nevada Supreme Court decision in Schuman Henschel v. Carter (for more on an earlier decision in Ruth v. Carter, see here):
This appeal arises out of a defamation countersuit brought by respondent Nickolas Carter against appellants Melissa and Jerome Schuman (collectively, the Schumans). Over the span of several years, the Schumans made statements about Carter's alleged sexual assault of Melissa and other women. One of the other women, Shannon Ruth, sued Carter for sexual battery, and Carter countersued for defamation and related torts and joined the Schumans as counter-defendants. The Schumans filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss Carter's claims against them….
[Under the Nevada anti-SLAPP statute, once a court determines that] "… the claim is based upon a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern[,]" … [the person making the claim must] show "with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim." …
"To prevail on a defamation claim, [a public figure] must show (1) a false and defamatory statement; (2) unprivileged publication to a third person; (3) fault; (4) damages, presumed or actual; and … (5) actual malice." Actual malice is demonstrated when a statement "is published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for its veracity." … "[T]o demonstrate by prima facie evidence a probability of success on the merits of a public figure defamation claim, the [non-moving party's] evidence must be sufficient for a jury, by clear and convincing evidence, to reasonably infer that the publication was made with actual malice." …
