30 Cited authorities

  1. Navellier v. Sletten

    29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,925 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim for relief filed in federal district court is protected activity
  2. Equilon Enterprises, Llc. v. Consumer Cause, Inc.

    29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,791 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fee shifting under the Anti-SLAPP statute without a showing of the plaintiff's "intent to chill" free speech did not violate the Constitution or "inappropriately punish plaintiffs," especially given that a plaintiff is burdened by payment of attorney fees "only when the plaintiff burdens free speech with an unsubstantiated claim"
  3. Sungho Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.

    2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 641 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in deciding whether the "arising from" requirement is met, "courts should consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability"
  4. Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore

    49 Cal.4th 12 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 285 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that § 425.17, subd. (c) did not apply when " ‘the representation was not "about" [defendant's] or a competitor's services or business operations’ "
  5. Shoemaker v. Myers

    52 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 460 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "no employee has a vested contractual right ... beyond the time or contrary to the terms and conditions fixed by law"
  6. OTO, L.L.C. v. Ken Kho

    8 Cal.5th 111 (Cal. 2019)   Cited 196 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding surprise where an agreement was "filled with statutory references and legal jargon," and "the text [was] visually impenetrable and challenge[d] the limits of legibility."
  7. Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club

    45 Cal.4th 309 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 165 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Approving "principal thrust or gravamen" test to determine whether action alleging both protected and unprotected activity is given SLAPP protection
  8. Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc.

    13 Cal.3d 622 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "while such clauses may be construed to provide indemnity for a loss resulting in part from an indemnitee's passive negligence, they will not be interpreted to provide indemnity if an indemnitee has been actively negligent"
  9. Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp.

    128 Cal.App.4th 187 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 83 times
    Upholding authority of trial court to construe a motion for reconsideration as a motion for a new trial; “a trial court is ‘free to consider the motion regardless of its label’ ”
  10. Lucas v. County of Los Angeles

    47 Cal.App.4th 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that the "reason to know" in § 845.6 is an "objective standard" and finding that the duty to provide medical care under § 845.6 includes "cases where there is actual or constructive knowledge that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care."
  11. Section 436 - Authority of court upon motion

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 436   Cited 310 times
    Authorizing the court to strike irrelevant, false, or improper matter from a pleading
  12. Section 875 - Right of contribution

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 875   Cited 187 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a "right of contribution may be enforced only after one tortfeasor has, by payment, discharged the joint judgment or has paid more than his pro rata share thereof"
  13. Section 435 - Service and filing of notice of motion to strike

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 435   Cited 165 times
    Defining the term pleading to include "demurrer"
  14. Section 8 - Proceedings commenced and rights accrued before effective date

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 8   Cited 120 times
    Stating that a pleading shall contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief"
  15. Section 876 - Pro rata share of each tortfeasor judgment debtor

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 876   Cited 28 times

    (a) The pro rata share of each tortfeasor judgment debtor shall be determined by dividing the entire judgment equally among all of them. (b) Where one or more persons are held liable solely for the tort of one of them or of another, as in the case of the liability of a master for the tort of his servant, they shall contribute a single pro rata share, as to which there may be indemnity between them. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 876 Added by Stats. 1957, Ch. 1700.