In this mandamus action arising from allegations that fracking contaminated a home-water supply, the principal issue is whether "clear and specific" evidence supporting defamation and conspiracy claims in order to thwart their dismissal requires a heightened proof standard. Lipsky and his wife, the homeowners, and Rich, an environmental consultant, moved under the Texas Citizens' Participation Act to dismiss a lawsuit against them. Range, the minerals producer drilling near the Lipsky home, claimed Lipsky defamed the company by alleging it was corrupt and "owned" state oil-and-gas regulators and by fabricating a video showing a water hose's end afire after he put a match to it. Range also alleged the Lipskys and Rich conspired to defame it. The Citizens' Participation Act permits a suit to be dismissed if it was filed to stymie a defendant's free-speech rights, but to avoid dismissal the plaintiff must present "clear and specific" evidence supporting the suit's essential elements. The trial court denied the Lipskys' and Rich's dismissal motions. The court of appeals reversed in part, dismissing claims against Mrs. Lipsky and the consultant but permitting the suit against Steven Lipsky to proceed.

The issue is whether taxing underground wastewater disposal wells separately from the surface constitutes unconstitutional double taxation.

The principal issues in this challenge under the Texas Citizens Participation Act are (1) whether the Halls' partner compounding pharmacy showed clearly and specifically that the newspaper's report the company was under federal investigation was substantially false and (2) whether a reasonable reader would infer the pharmacy's guilt from the newspaper's reporting that included allegations in lawsuits, a federal investigation and the context of the broader controversy over compounding industry practices.