Remember the lawsuit a local persom had against the County?

[Winchester]

BTW - I'm assuming that this was the anti-SLAPP portion of the lawsuit that was handed down from the appellate court? And not the original suit, which to my understanding, has STILL not been tried in a court of law after six or seven years?

And FTR, THAT has been my gripe the entire time. He may have a totally spurious case, although a judge didn't see fit to throw it out. So TRY THE CASE IN COURT ALREADY and be done with it!!!

What I was told last night is that this case is over and done. He lost and the County won. About that time we were interrupted by someone and never got back to the story. Someone will have to pull the court records to get more details.

 

[LisaC]

BTW - I'm assuming that this was the anti-SLAPP portion of the lawsuit that was handed down from the appellate court? And not the original suit, which to my understanding, has STILL not been tried in a court of law after six or seven years?

And FTR, THAT has been my gripe the entire time. He may have a totally spurious case, although a judge didn't see fit to throw it out. So TRY THE CASE IN COURT ALREADY and be done with it!!!

I believe the Anti-SLAPP was decided by the Georgia Court of Appeals in 2012 Let me do some digging and see if I can find it. I want to say it was reversed and a ruling was issued in favor of the county, but don't hold me to it, I'm going off of my memory which is working on coffee fumes at the moment...

Okay, editing to add the ruling and a link:

We granted the Board's applications for interlocutory appeal to consider all four of the superior court's rulings—the orders dated November 22, 2010, and May 12, 2011, in which the superior court held that the Wherefore clauses constituted counterclaims and violated the anti-SLAPP statute, and the two orders dated July 6, 2011, in which the superior court sanctioned the Board for the full amount of Stinson's fees.15 And while we could reverse the superior court's rulings for any number of reasons, it is only necessary to do so on the ground that the Wherefore clauses in the Board's answers did not constitute counterclaims.
...
In sum, the superior court has a duty to construe “[a]ll pleadings ? as to do
substantial justice.” That was not done in this case. The court's determination
that the Board's Wherefore clauses were impermissible counterclaims constitutes
plain legal error, and consequently its subsequent holdings that the
“counterclaims” were falsely verified and warranted sanctions must also be
reversed.

The rulings of the Superior Court concerning the anti-SLAPP and the award of attorney's fees was reversed by the GA Court of Appeals.

Here's the link to the complete opinion of the Court:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1606005.html