Smith v. Supple

Summary

The dissent would hold that the denial of a special motion to dismiss under Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute is not immediately appealable because the statute creates an expedited procedure to assert immunity from liability, not immunity from suit or a statutory right to avoid litigation. Applying the plain meaning rule and strict construction of appellate rights, the dissent concludes that the legislature did not use sufficiently explicit language to satisfy the second prong of the interlocutory-appeal test. The dissent therefore would dismiss the defendants’ appeal. Justice D’Auria, joined by Justices Ecker and Alexander, dissents from the majority’s contrary conclusion that the appeal may proceed.