§Why CasetextPricing

Mosley v. Conte

MOTION to Strike COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIAS ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE [C.C.P. §425.16] STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

36 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Mendenhall

    446 U.S. 544 (1980)   Cited 6,280 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that knowledge of a right to refuse is "highly relevant to the determination that there had been consent"

  2. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

    376 U.S. 254 (1964)   Cited 6,909 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a public official or public figure can recover damages for defamation on a matter of public concern only if he proves that the speaker acted with actual malice

  3. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

    418 U.S. 323 (1974)   Cited 3,874 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a private defamation plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages without proving actual malice

  4. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.

    501 U.S. 496 (1991)   Cited 1,408 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "plaintiff must demonstrate that the author in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication"

  5. St. Amant v. Thompson

    390 U.S. 727 (1968)   Cited 1,769 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to show actual malice, plaintiff must show "high degree of awareness of probably falsity"

  6. Equilon Enterprises, Llc. v. Consumer Cause, Inc.

    29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,789 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"

  7. ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson

    93 Cal.App.4th 993 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 637 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff "failed to establish probability of success under California's anti-SLAPP statute on abuse of process claim because plaintiff alleged misuse of administrative process of Federal Communications Commission rather than abuse of judicial process"

  8. Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula

    159 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 281 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an issue of public interest" is "any issue in which the public is interested" and concluding that an article about a "prominent businessman and celebrity" met the standard

  9. Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hosp. Dist.

    39 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 262 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding hospital's peer review procedure qualifies as "official proceeding"

  10. Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim

    42 Cal.App.4th 628 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 337 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that matters of public interest "include product liability suits, real estate or investment scams, etc."

  11. Section 425.16 - California anti-SLAPP law

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16   Cited 2,829 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