Slapp suits are nothing new. A Slapp suit, which stands for strategic litigation against public participation, is an easy and often relatively inexpensive device available for shutting up members of the public who voice opposition to a proposed project.

We all know what typically happens before this kind of suit is filed. A developer or other applicant of sorts seeks approval for a controversial project. Neighbors rally, causing delay, which equates to dollars in the minds of the often cash starved applicant. Time is money, after all. Soon, it all starts to get a little too personal, and a Slapp suit follows.

Here is the classic tension in these kinds of cases. The citizens want to object and have a First Amendment right to do so. On the other hand, the developers and other applicants do not want to get bogged down in sometimes baseless delay tactics. And for them, as I have already said, time is money.

In order to intimidate objectors, some developers have taken to filing Slapp suits. The purspose is simple: to shut down opposition so that the project will be uneventfully approved.

In New Jersey, a recent appeals court decision called LoBiondo v. Schwartz has reflected New Jersey's strong disfavor of these kinds of suits. And New Jersey is not along. Several other states have passed anti-Slapp laws, and others, such as New Jersey, have seen court decisions confirming disdain for this tactic.

In the LoBiondo case, at issue was a proposal to enlarge a beach house. While some might have enjoyed the amenities associated with a larger beach house, an adjoining property owner was outraged by the proposal. And she was not alone. The property owner and her "partners" made it their business to vocally oppose the project at every step of the way. It got ugly -- which is not unusual.

Keeping in mind the the theme of this article, you can guess what happened next. The applicant filed a Slapp suit against the opponents. The allegations in the lawsuit were typical: defamation, emotional distress and business interference. What's more, this angry applicant did not just seek compensatory damages, the applicant also sought punitive damages, in otherwords, a damage award sufficient to "punish" the objectors for opening their mouths.

While the trial court allowed the case to proceed, the appeals court stopped the lawsuit dead in its tracks. The appeals court dismissed the lawsuit against the objectors and, what's more, allowed the objectors' counterclaims against the plaintiff to proceed That was an enormous victory for the citizen group . The appeals court saw this lawsuit for what it was: a Slapp suit and nothing more. And the court made it clear that Slapp suits are extremely disfavored. The public must be allowed to participate in public application processes, even if they do so loudly, and sometimes even abusively.

The appeals court just hated this kind of lawsuit. Defamation claims will not be allowed to proceed to trial, unless the objectors' actions wreak of bad faith. The same is so with interference with business claims as well.

So as to punctuate the court's disdain for these kinds of suits, it allowed the objector's claim for abuse of process to go forward. Abuse of process is sort of the anti-Slapp tonic that can be used to counter improper Slapp suits.

This appears to be a national trend. People have a First Amendment right to participate in local land use decisions and no one can stop them. Overall, this has to be seen by most as a good directionin which we should continue to head. So, three cheers for the First Amendment and three boos to thin skinned land use applicants.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.