Latest Blog Posts
“False Predator” Accusation Case Study in Oregon
- Dec 18, 2025
- Defamation
Representative Case Study of a False “Predator” Accusation in a Youth Sports Community Overview In youth sports communities, reputation is everything. Parents trust coaches. Organizations rely on volunteers. Leadership decisions are often informal, relational, and deeply influenced by perception. In this case, an individual involved in youth athletics became the target of repeated accusations suggesting […]
Workplace Defamation, Anti-SLAPP, and False Criminal Accusation Case Study in Oregon
- Dec 17, 2025
- Defamation
Representative Case Study of Workplace Defamation, Anti-SLAPP, and False Criminal Accusations Overview This case began the way many defamation cases do, not with a lawsuit, but with rumors. A professional in Oregon started hearing that people at work were “concerned.” Then came questions. Then distancing. Eventually, the accusations hardened into something more serious: claims that […]
OREGON DEFAMATION, ANTI-SLAPP, AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS HUB
- Dec 16, 2025
- Defamation
Defamation • Anti-SLAPP • Reputation Litigation False accusations can destroy a reputation long before anyone ever steps into a courtroom. In Oregon, defamation, anti-SLAPP law, and constitutional free speech protections intersect in ways that are fast-moving, technical, and unforgiving. This page is the central hub for understanding how defamation, anti-SLAPP motions, and false accusations are […]
Young v. Davis: Landmark Oregon Anti-SLAPP Case Establishing the Proper Burden of Proof
- Dec 16, 2025
- Defamation
Young v. Davis was a Landmark Anti-SLAPP Case Young v. Davis is one of the most important Oregon anti-SLAPP decisions interpreting ORS 31.150, particularly the second step of the anti-SLAPP burden-shifting framework. In this case, the Oregon Court of Appeals made clear that trial courts may not weigh evidence or decide credibility when ruling on […]
When “Opinions” Become Defamation in Oregon Law
- Dec 16, 2025
- Defamation
Courts in Oregon draw a clear line between protected opinion and actionable defamation. A statement framed as “I believe” or “in my opinion” does not automatically escape liability. If the comment implies undisclosed facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe the accusation is true, the speaker can be sued for defamation. Below is […]
Defamation Prevention and Social Media Monitoring in Oregon
- Dec 16, 2025
- Defamation
Stop False Accusations Before They Damage Your Reputation False accusations spread faster than the truth. One comment, one Reddit post, one vague “warning” can turn into a narrative about you. If you are seeing early signs of a smear campaign or want a system to catch problems before they erupt, this page is for you. […]
Defamation, Anti-SLAPP, and Reputation Litigation
- Dec 16, 2025
- Defamation
False accusations can destroy a career, a business, or a community reputation long before anyone ever sets foot in a courtroom. When someone crosses the line from protected speech into defamatory conduct, Oregon law provides remedies. The challenge is knowing how to pursue those remedies without getting buried by an anti-SLAPP motion or procedural […]
How to Survive an Anti-SLAPP Motion in Oregon
- Dec 16, 2025
- Defamation
What is an anti-SLAPP motion in Oregon? Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) An anti-SLAPP motion is a special motion to strike under ORS 31.150 that allows a defendant to seek early dismissal of a lawsuit they claim arises from protected speech or petitioning activity. Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent lawsuits that are designed to chill […]
Oregon Mandatory Reporting and Patient Privilege: A Legal Analysis
- Sep 30, 2025
- Legal Theory and Philosophy
Statutory Framework Oregon law imposes a non-discretionary duty on mandatory reporters. Under ORS 419B.010(1), any public or private official with “reasonable cause to believe” that a child has suffered abuse, or that any person with whom the official comes into contact has abused a child, must immediately report or cause a report to be made […]
Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: The Highest Standard of Proof
- Sep 25, 2025
- Legal Theory and Philosophy
Most people think they understand what “proof” means. But walk into a courtroom, and suddenly that word gets blurry. Jurors start confusing gut instinct with evidence. Confidence with certainty. Emotion with fact. That’s why defense attorneys have to reframe the whole conversation—because “beyond a reasonable doubt” isn’t just a phrase. It’s the cornerstone of justice. […]
