9 Cited authorities

  1. Weinberg v. Feisel

    110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 258 times
    Holding that statements by defendant who published advertisement in token collecting newsletter circulated to 700 members that plaintiff had stolen valuable item from defendant did not involve matter of public interest
  2. Shively v. Bozanich

    31 Cal.4th 1230 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 246 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the applicable statute of limitations for a defamation action is one year under § 340(c)
  3. Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc.

    151 Cal.App.4th 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 211 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding standing under section 17204 where plaintiff had plead that defendant's unfair business practices — intentional dissemination of false negative reports — had "resulted] in diminution in value of [plaintiffs] assets and decline in its market capitalization and other vested interests"
  4. Hailstone v. Martinez

    169 Cal.App.4th 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 105 times
    Finding allegations that trustee of union health and welfare fund trust misappropriated money was issue of public interest
  5. Fashion 21 v. Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles

    117 Cal.App.4th 1138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 70 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that silent witness theory applies not only to pictures but also to videos
  6. Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. Actelion Ltd.

    222 Cal.App.4th 945 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 35 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding substantial evidence supporting a lost profits calculation where the business "does not fit neatly into the established business versus new business paradigm"
  7. Walker v. Kiousis

    93 Cal.App.4th 1432 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 51 times
    Finding that a citizen's complaint to the police is "made in connection with an official proceeding authorized by law"
  8. Scecorp v. Superior Court

    3 Cal.App.4th 673 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 27 times
    In SCEcorp v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.App.4th 673, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 372 (1992), the court held that an electric utility could bring a claim for tortious interference against a corporation where the corporation had interfered with a proposed merger between the utility and another utility even though the merger required regulatory approval.
  9. Moranville v. Aletto

    153 Cal.App.2d 667 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)   Cited 7 times
    In Moranville v. Aletto, 153 Cal.App.2d 667 [ 315 P.2d 91], defendant said to plaintiff within the hearing of others, "Yes... you stole my money."; the court said at page 672: "Theft is a serious charge, definitely implying a high degree of moral turpitude.