“‘Clear and convincing’ evidence not needed to survive dismissal” (http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/24-3/lib-huckabee.html).

If I correctly understood this article (something you can best judge by reading the article yourself), Texas distinguishes itself from the majority of “fact-pleading” jurisdictions by not requiring a “public figure” defamation plaintiff to 1) plead facts showing actual malice on the part of the defendant or 2) plead facts meeting a heightened (see, e.g. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)) standard of proof.

Texas appears to conform to Anderson v. Liberty Lobby when and if a defendant moves for summary judgment. However, it apparently will not dismiss a defamation complaint simply because a plaintiff would fail to meet a heightened standard of proof if all the facts alleged in the complaint are true.

By the way, the Federal Circuit (no stranger to heightened standards of proof) has cited Anderson v. Liberty Lobby more than 1500 times for the proposition that “The grant of a motion for summary judgment requires that there is no reasonable view of the material facts, taking cognizance of the evidentiary standards and burdens, whereby a reasonable jury could find for the non-movant.”