Section 52-196a

Citation: Section 52-196a
Parent Document: Robinson v. V. D. (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-11-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10282961/robinson-v-v-d/ ↗

Full Text

2,433 chars

3d 385 (2003); see also Smith v. Zilverberg, 137 Nev.
          65, 68, 481 P.3d 1222 (2021); 61A Am. Jur. 2d 448, Plead-
          ing § 380 (2021). We agree that these factors are useful
          in evaluating whether a defendant’s actions implicate
          a matter of public concern for purposes of our anti-
          SLAPP statute.
             Turning first to the alleged conduct related to the
          defendant’s efforts to obtain a civil protection order,
          we agree with the trial court’s analysis that this conduct
          arises out of a wholly private dispute between the par-
          ties that does not have any appreciable connection to
          a matter of public concern. Accordingly, such conduct
          falls outside the ambit of § 52-196a and its intended
          protections. As the trial court aptly explained in its
          memorandum of decision, a number of Superior Court
          decisions have held that a party’s statements pertaining
          to criminal activities potentially may implicate a matter
          of public concern under the ‘‘health or safety’’ prong
          of the statutory definition. See General Statutes § 52-
          296a (a) (1) (A). In those cases, however, the criminal
          activity in question had a connection not just to the
          health and safety of the parties involved but potentially
          to the health and/or safety of the public or community
          at large. This context is missing in the present case.
          Although the defendant’s application for a civil protec-
          tive order concerned some activity that, if charged and
          proven, potentially was criminal in nature, we are not
          convinced that the health and safety of the public itself
          is implicated so as to raise a matter of public concern
          under § 52-196a. Rather, the allegations and statements
          made by the defendant involved conduct that was
          wholly personal in nature, arising out of a verbal argu-
          ment between the parties. The defendant has failed
          to convince us on appeal that the court improperly
          determined that the conduct alleged in the complaint
          regarding the civil protection order did not involve a
          health or safety issue connected to a matter of public
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 25

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text