Joe Rogers sued Hylton Dupree and related defendants over statements and conduct arising from a contentious public dispute. The trial court applied Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute to portions of the litigation, denied several motions to dismiss, and entered different rulings in consolidated appeals. Sitting as a whole court, the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of Dupree’s anti-SLAPP motion in one case while affirming the other rulings. The majority held that the claims at issue did not fall within the statutory protection because the challenged conduct was not the type of public-interest petitioning activity covered by the Act. The court also held that the pleadings stated claims sufficient to proceed and that the anti-SLAPP statute could not be used to obtain dismissal merely because the dispute involved public statements. Several judges concurred in part or in the judgment only, and the presiding judge and another judge dissented in part.