§Why CasetextPricing

BARRY v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

Respondent’s Petition for Review

32 Cited authorities

  1. Willy v. Coastal Corp.

    503 U.S. 131 (1992)   Cited 835 times
    Holding federal district courts may impose Rule 11 sanctions even "in a case in which the district court is later determined to be without subject-matter jurisdiction"

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

    29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,786 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. Ketchum v. Moses

    24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,734 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof

  4. Flatley v. Mauro

    39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,319 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-SLAPP protection is not available where the "assertedly protected speech or petition activity [is] illegal as a matter of law"

  5. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope Opportunity

    19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,068 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-SLAPP motions brought "to strike a cause of action arising from a statement made before, or in connection with an issue under consideration by, a legally authorized official proceeding need not separately demonstrate that the statement concerned an issue of public significance."

  6. Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino

    35 Cal.4th 180 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 638 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a proceeding affects the effectiveness of the appeal if the very purpose of the appeal is to avoid the need for that proceeding"

  7. Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore

    49 Cal.4th 12 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 283 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’ "

  8. Wilcox v. Superior Court

    27 Cal.App.4th 809 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 409 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "probability" is equivalent to a "reasonable probability" of prevailing

  9. Kajima Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

    95 Cal.App.4th 921 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 274 times
    Recognizing distinction under SLAPP between a lawsuit arising from the events underlying the complaint, which is not a SLAPP, compared to a lawsuit suing targeting protected activity of the litigation process itself which is often a SLAPP

  10. City of Colton v. Singletary

    206 Cal.App.4th 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 136 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming attorney fee award to party whose anti-SLAPP motion obtained a "'significant victory'" by "'prevent[ing] the City from compelling [him] to undertake significant construction and work'"

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  12. Rule 8.208 - Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

    Cal. R. 8.208   Cited 17 times

    (a)Purpose and intent The California Code of Judicial Ethics states the circumstances under which an appellate justice must disqualify himself or herself from a proceeding. The purpose of this rule is to provide justices of the Courts of Appeal with additional information to help them determine whether to disqualify themselves from a proceeding. (b)Application This rule applies in appeals in civil cases other than family, juvenile, guardianship, and conservatorship cases. (Subd (b) adopted effective

  13. Rule 9.12 - Standard of review for State Bar Court Review Department

    Cal. R. 9.12   Cited 4 times

    In reviewing the decisions, orders, or rulings of a hearing judge under rule 301 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California or such other rule as may be adopted governing the review of any decisions, orders, or rulings by a hearing judge that fully disposes of an entire proceeding, the Review Department of the State Bar Court must independently review the record and may adopt findings, conclusions, and a decision or recommendation different from those of the hearing judge. Cal. R. Ct