Court Opinion

ID: 9716104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:27:03.249574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:41.785012
License: Public Domain

FLANDERS, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the decision of the Court to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. But I would do so without reaching the *1093question of whether the anti-SLAPP statute bars the causes of action stated in this complaint. It is well settled that courts should decide cases “on the narrowest legal grounds available.” Shamloo v. Mississippi State Board of Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning, 620 F.2d 516, 524 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Rias, 524 F.2d 118, 120 n. 2 (5th Cir.1975). “It is the duty of the court to resolve the dispute before it on whatever ground may properly conclude or dispose of the litigation, and not engage unnecessarily in exercises in the derivation of abstract law.” State v. St. Peter, 132 Vt. 266, 315 A.2d 254, 255 (1974).
Generally, “court[s] should refrain from [expressing] dicta.” State ex rel. Smith v. Carey, 112 A.2d 26, 28 (Del.1955). “[W]hen the Court goes beyond what is necessary to decide the case before it, it can only encourage the perception that it is pursuing its own notions of wise social policy, rather than adhering to its judicial role.” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 963, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring).
For the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion, the claims at issue in this case are deficient in other respects, making it unnecessary for us to decide that the anti-SLAPP statute does not bar these claims because, as the majority concludes, the defendants’ challenged actions did not raise genuine issues of public concern. When the plaintiffs failed to show a sufficient factual and legal predicate for their complaint against their landlord and property manager, the Superior Court properly dismissed the complaint on summary judgment. In this context, the majority’s narrow construction of the anti-SLAPP statute’s scope is obiter dictum. Thus, because we have no need to decide whether the anti-SLAPP statute bars these claims, I would refrain from passing on that potentially delicate and more difficult question.