41 Cited authorities

Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman
51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011) Cited 1,267 times 2 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that an attorney "may not do anything which will injuriously affect former client in any matter in which [the attorney] formerly represented [the client]"
Flatley v. Mauro
39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006) Cited 1,322 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"
Rusheen v. Cohen
37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006) Cited 1,152 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding California's litigation privilege precludes liability arising from noncommunicative acts that are necessarily related to enforcing a judgment
City of Cotati v. Cashman
29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) Cited 1,265 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding "the mere fact an action was filed after protected activity took place does not mean it arose from that activity"; rejecting defendant's argument that plaintiff's complaint "arose" from defendant's having previously filed lawsuit, where plaintiff's complaint "contain[ed] no reference to the [defendant's] action"
Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope Opportunity
19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999) Cited 1,069 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."
Taus v. Loftus
40 Cal.4th 683 (Cal. 2007) Cited 770 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a published article and the investigation conducted in connection with the article, including an interview, constituted protected activity
Mycogen Corporation v. Monsanto Company
28 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002) Cited 822 times
Holding that a judgment granting declaratory relief and decreeing specific performance barred, under claim preclusion, a subsequent suit for damages
Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
133 Cal.App.4th 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 469 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the attorneys' advice letters to their client did not "concern any petitioning activity" because "[t]he letters were not writings made before a judicial proceeding, or in connection with an issue under review by a court."
Hayes v. County of San Diego
57 Cal.4th 622 (Cal. 2013) Cited 274 times
Holding that "state negligence law, which considers the totality of the circumstances surrounding any use of deadly force, is broader than federal Fourth Amendment law, which tends to focus more narrowly on the moment when deadly force is used"
Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc.
120 Cal.App.4th 90 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 354 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendants' solicitation of the plaintiff's customers by making "fraudulent and disparaging comments" about the plaintiff and false reports to a government agency that the plaintiff was responsible for pollution were not of public concern in part because the plaintiff was not "an entity in the public eye"
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
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

BARAL v. SCHNITT

41 Cited authorities

Recognizing that an attorney "may not do anything which will injuriously affect former client in any matter in which [the attorney] formerly represented [the client]"

Holding that anti-SLAPP protection is not available where the "assertedly protected speech or petition activity [is] illegal as a matter of law"

Holding California's litigation privilege precludes liability arising from noncommunicative acts that are necessarily related to enforcing a judgment

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."

Holding that a published article and the investigation conducted in connection with the article, including an interview, constituted protected activity

Holding that a judgment granting declaratory relief and decreeing specific performance barred, under claim preclusion, a subsequent suit for damages

Holding that the attorneys' advice letters to their client did not "concern any petitioning activity" because "[t]he letters were not writings made before a judicial proceeding, or in connection with an issue under review by a court."

Holding that "state negligence law, which considers the totality of the circumstances surrounding any use of deadly force, is broader than federal Fourth Amendment law, which tends to focus more narrowly on the moment when deadly force is used"