Anti-SLAPP protection

Missouri’s anti-SLAPP statute was enacted in 2004, then revised in 2012 (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.528.)

Law summary

Missouri’s anti-SLAPP law is narrowly applied to speech or conduct during public hearings or meetings in “quasi-judicial proceedings” before government bodies (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.528). This includes meetings of state or local governmental entities such as councils, planning commissions, and review boards. The law is specific to claims seeking money damages, not declaratory or injunctive relief.

Legal actions

• Special motion to dismiss: Missouri’s statute allows those facing a lawsuit that fits within the outlined definitions to motion for an expedited judgment.
• The burden of proof: The law does not shift the burden of proof to the respondent.
• Timeline: A special motion to dismiss must be filed within 90 days of the moving party’s response.
• Attorney fees: If the motion is granted, the defendant is awarded attorney’s fees and costs. If the motion is deemed frivolous, the plaintiff can recover fees.

Helpful cases

In the cases below, courts evaluated the applicability of Missouri’s anti-SLAPP law.

Moschenross v. St. Louis County (2006)

The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the public financing of a new stadium for the St. Louis Cardinals, rejecting claims by opponents who argued that the financing primarily benefited the private entity Cardinals Ballpark L.L.C. and violated the Missouri Constitution. The court found that the project served a public purpose, including generating tax revenue and economic benefits. The coalition’s claim that the lawsuit was a retaliatory SLAPP was dismissed, as the court determined the plaintiffs were seeking legal clarity on their obligations, not suppressing free speech.

Cedar Green Land Acquisitions v. Baker (2007)

Cedar Green Land Acquisitions sued defendant Vera Kay Baker for defamation. Baker used Missouri’s anti-SLAPP law as a defense against claims of defamation, trespass, and interference with business relations, filing a special motion to dismiss under the statute. The trial court denied her motion, and Baker attempted to appeal, arguing that the anti-SLAPP law allowed her to do so. However, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed her appeal, stating that Missouri case law does not permit interlocutory appeals (appeals made before a final judgment) when a trial court denies an anti-SLAPP motion. While the statute allows for expedited appeals when an anti-SLAPP motion is granted, it does not provide for appeals in cases where the motion is denied, reinforcing Missouri’s restrictive stance on interlocutory appeals in anti-SLAPP cases.

Diehl v. Fred Weber (2010)

In 2003, Fred Weber filed a defamation lawsuit against Thomas Diehl after he distributed a flyer opposing a trash transfer station, which referred to Weber’s company as “trash terrorists.” The court ruled that the flyer’s language was not defamatory, considering it rhetorical hyperbole and protected speech, thus dismissing the defamation claim. Then Tom Diehl and his wife Barbara filed a lawsuit against Weber, which originally alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and a prima facie tort in connection with its original suit against Tom Diehl. The St. Louis City Circuit Court dismissed the lawsuit, but the couple appealed. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s summary judgment on Diehl’s malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims, finding factual disputes about whether the original defamation suit was filed with probable cause.

Legislative activity

Missouri lawmakers proposed to repeal the current anti-SLAPP statute (Section 537.528) and replace it with a version of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (HB 1785 , SB 1293), which offers expanded protections than the existing law. The bills were unsuccessful.

Of note

Missouri’s anti-SLAPP law is one of the weakest in the U.S.