("[The phrase ‘sexual predator’] falls within the broader principle that a speaker’s individual judgment that ‘rests solely in the eye of the beholder’ is mere opinion.") (quoting Falk & Mayfield, L.L.P. v. Molzan, 974 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1998)); Rosado v. Daily News, L.P., 2014 WL 883648, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 31, 2014) (finding "the phrase ‘sexual predator’ is a non-actionable statement of opinion"); Burgoon v. Delahunt, 2000 WL 1780285, at *4 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2000) (holding phrase "sexual predator" fell "within the doctrines of hyperbole, opinion, and substantial truth" and therefore was non-actionable). This failure of proof cannot be defeated by the unsupported claim that the testimony offered in opposition to summary judgment was untruthful.
Indeed, sister-state judges have tossed out of court cases predicated on "sexual predator" language. Burgoon v. Delahunt, 2000 WL 1780285 (Minn. App.) (reasonable person could apply "sexual predator" to inappropriate touching and offensive sexual comments);Terry v. Davis Cmty. Church, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1534, 1555 (2005) (inappropriate relationship with minor).
Indeed, sister-state judges have tossed out of court cases predicated on "sexual predator" language. Burgoon v Delahunt, 2000 WL 1780285 (Minn App) (reasonable person could apply "sexual predator" to inappropriate touching and offensive sexual comments); Terry v Davis Community Church, 131 Cal App 4th 1534, 1555 (2005) (inappropriate relationship with minor). So-called "Nazis," "racists," "terrorists," "scabs," "fraudsters," and "traitors," no doubt a woefully incomplete list, have all come up empty-handed in court.