Young v. Davis: Landmark Oregon Anti-SLAPP Case Establishing the Proper Burden of Proof

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 a special motion to strike.

Instead, the court reaffirmed that the statute requires only that a plaintiff present substantial evidence supporting a prima facie case, not proof that the plaintiff will ultimately prevail.

Attorney Mike Arnold, representing the appellant, successfully reversed a trial court ruling that had improperly dismissed the case at the anti-SLAPP stage. The decision now serves as a core reference point in Oregon anti-SLAPP litigation.

What the Case Was About

The case arose out of workplace and law-enforcement-related accusations made against the plaintiff. The defendant reported alleged misconduct to supervisors and to law enforcement, which ultimately led the plaintiff to file a civil action alleging defamation and wrongful use of civil proceedings.

The defendant responded with a special motion to strike under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims arose out of protected petitioning activity and that the plaintiff could not meet the statutory burden required to proceed.

The trial court agreed with the defendant and granted the anti-SLAPP motion, effectively ending the case at the pleading stage.

The Anti-SLAPP Legal Framework at Issue

Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, ORS 31.150, establishes a two-step analysis:

1. Protected Activity Inquiry

2. The defendant must first show that the plaintiff’s claim arises out of speech or conduct protected by the statute, such as statements made in a judicial or official proceeding or in connection with an issue of public concern.

3. Plaintiff’s Burden of Production

4. If the defendant meets that initial burden, the plaintiff must then show a probability of prevailing by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case.

The dispute in Young v. Davis centered on how courts should apply the second step.

The Trial Court’s Error

The Court of Appeals explained that the trial court misapplied the statute by effectively treating the anti-SLAPP motion as a mini-trial on the merits.

Rather than asking whether the plaintiff’s evidence, if believed, was sufficient to support each element of the claims, the trial court:

• Compared the plaintiff’s evidence against the defendant’s evidence
• Assessed credibility
• Evaluated whether the plaintiff was “likely” to succeed in an ultimate sense

The appellate court emphasized that this approach was inconsistent with the statute’s text and purpose.

The Court of Appeals’ Holding

The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, explaining that:

• The term “probability” in ORS 31.150 does not authorize courts to resolve factual disputes

• “Substantial evidence” means evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find in the plaintiff’s favor if the evidence were believed

• The anti-SLAPP statute does not permit weighing evidence, resolving conflicts, or making credibility determinations

The court underscored that the plaintiff’s burden at the anti-SLAPP stage is intentionally modest. The statute is designed to screen out claims that lack evidentiary support, not to deprive plaintiffs of a jury where substantial evidence exists.

Because the plaintiff had presented evidence supporting the elements of defamation and wrongful use of civil proceedings, the trial court was required to deny the motion to strike.

Why Young v. Davis Is a Pivotal Anti-SLAPP Decision

Young v. Davis is frequently cited and relied upon because it:

• Clarifies the meaning of “substantial evidence” under ORS 31.150
• Prevents misuse of anti-SLAPP motions as premature dispositive tools
• Protects plaintiffs from having their cases dismissed simply because defendants offer competing evidence
• Reinforces that anti-SLAPP is procedural, not a merits determination

In practical terms, the case ensures that anti-SLAPP motions do not become a shortcut to summary judgment without discovery.

Attorney Mike Arnold’s Role and Impact

Attorney Mike Arnold’s appellate advocacy in Young v. Davis helped define how anti-SLAPP motions are litigated across Oregon.

The decision reflects:

• Oregon statutory interpretation
• Strategy of procedural safeguards in defamation and reputational litigation
• Importance of experience in taking complex cases from trial court through successful appeal

This case forms part of a broader body of work in which Attorney Arnold has consistently challenged overbroad applications of anti-SLAPP statutes and protected clients’ rights to have legitimate claims heard.

Why This Case Still Matters Today

For anyone dealing with:

• Defamation lawsuits in Oregon
• Anti-SLAPP motions under ORS 31.150
• Claims dismissed too early based on credibility disputes
• Speech-related litigation involving private disputes

Young v. Davis remains essential reading.

It stands for the principle that courts must apply the statute as written, not as a substitute for trial.