§Why CasetextPricing

Defendant Woodalls Reply In Support of Antislapp Motion

Reply

23 Cited authorities

  1. Fisher v. United States

    425 U.S. 391 (1976)   Cited 2,095 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that act of producing evidence may, in some circumstances, trigger Fifth Amendment safeguards

  2. Navellier v. Sletten

    29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,954 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim for relief filed in federal district court is protected activity

  3. Rusheen v. Cohen

    37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,174 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding California's litigation privilege precludes liability arising from noncommunicative acts that are necessarily related to enforcing a judgment

  4. Silberg v. Anderson

    50 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 1,041 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the litigation privilege applied, even after the finality of a marriage dissolution decree, to an attorney who made statements during a marriage dissolution proceeding

  5. Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick

    60 Cal.App.4th 793 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 505 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agreement "must not only contain all the material terms but also express each in a reasonably definite manner."

  6. Braun v. Chronicle Publishing Co.

    52 Cal.App.4th 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 192 times
    In Braun v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 52 Cal. App.4th 1036, 1049, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 58 (1997), the court of appeal similarly concluded that an investigative audit conducted by a state auditor was "an authorized, public proceeding because it is government-sponsored and provided for by statute."

  7. Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    92 Cal.App.4th 1068 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 160 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the complaint cannot be amended after a trial court has decided on the motion

  8. Kenne v. Stennis

    230 Cal.App.4th 953 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that even making allegedly false police reports is protected petitioning activity under the anti-SLAPP statute when falsity is not conceded

  9. Summit Bank v. Rogers

    206 Cal.App.4th 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 96 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In Summit Bank the court, in determining the challenged speech implicated a public issue, suggested there was a public interest in "the financial world."

  10. Moore v. Conliffe

    7 Cal.4th 634 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 151 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the litigation privilege applies to "a private, contractual arbitration proceeding"

  11. Section 425.16 - [Effective 1/1/2025] California anti-SLAPP law

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16   Cited 2,993 times   110 Legal Analyses
    Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees

  12. Section 912 - Waiver

    Cal. Evid. Code § 912   Cited 367 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Setting out the same waiver standard for enumerated forms of privilege, not including work product protection

  13. Section 972 - Scope of article

    Cal. Evid. Code § 972   Cited 36 times
    Limiting the scope of the spousal testimonial privilege in cases involving a spouse, "child, parent, relative, or cohabitant," italics added