CHIEF AIRCRAFT, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent,
Eric GRILL, Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted on remand October 17, 2016.
County Circuit Court 12CV1156.
remand from the Oregon Supreme Court, Chief Aircraft,
Inc. v. Grill, 360 Or. 400, 381 P.3d 836 (2016). Thomas
M. Hull, Judge.
K. Williams and Daniel W. Meek fled the briefs for appellant.
Michael J. Mayerle and Hornecker Cowling LLP fled the brief
Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Chief Judge, and
fled a lawsuit against defendant for defamation, defamation
per se, and intentional interference with economic
relations, based on defendant's online statements about
plaintiff. Defendant fled an Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against
Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) motion under ORS 31.150,
which the trial court denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court subsequently allowed review and remanded to
the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of its
intervening decision in Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or.
706, 369 P.3d 1117 (2016), in which the Supreme Court adopted
a specific framework to determine whether a defamatory
statement is entitled to First Amendment protection.
trial court did not err in denying defendant's anti-SLAPP
motion. Applying Neumann, a reasonable factfnder could
conclude that two of defendant's statements imply an
assertion of objective fact. Accordingly, those statements,
if false, are not protected by the First Amendment.
Or.App. 730] AOYAGI, J.
an online defamation case. Defendant made certain statements
about plaintiff on a consumer website and on Twitter, which
led plaintiff to file this lawsuit against him for defamation
and intentional interference with economic relations (HER).
Defendant filed an Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation (anti-SLAPP) motion under ORS 31.150, which the
trial court denied. We affirmed, and defendant sought review.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court issued its decision in
Neumann v. Liles,358 Or. 706, 369 P.3d 1117 (2016),
wherein, as a matter of first impression, it adopted an
explicit framework for analyzing whether a defamatory
statement is entitled to First Amendment protection. The
court then allowed defendant's ...