§Why CasetextPricing

PARRISH v. LATHAM & WATKINS (To be called and continued to the June 2017 calendar.)

Amicus Curiae Brief of Attorney’s Liability Assurance Society, Inc., Baker & McKenzie, Bryan Cave LLP, et al.

39 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Wilson v. Parker, Covert Chidester

    28 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 690 times
    Finding that denial of a motion for nonsuit establishes the plaintiff can substantiate its claims with sufficient evidence to support a favorable verdict

  3. In re Marriage of Flaherty

    31 Cal.3d 637 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 1,186 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sanctions are justified only if an appeal is prosecuted for an improper motive, such as to harass the respondent or delay an adverse judgment, or indisputably lacks merit

  4. Zamos v. Stroud

    32 Cal.4th 958 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 513 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the tort of malicious prosecution includes "continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause"

  5. Lee v. Hanley

    61 Cal.4th 1225 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 314 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 340.6 did not bar plaintiff's fee dispute claim that attorney refused to return unearned attorney's fees, because the claim could also be construed as conversion

  6. Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert Oliker

    47 Cal.3d 863 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 707 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the question for the probable cause analysis in a malicious prosecution action is whether any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim was tenable

  7. Pacific Gas Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns Co.

    50 Cal.3d 1118 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 665 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that interference with plaintiff's performance may give rise to a claim for interference with contractual relations if plaintiff's performance is made more costly or more burdensome

  8. Bertero v. National General Corp.

    13 Cal.3d 43 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 590 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Approving a jury instruction allowing the jury to find for the plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action even if only one of the three theories of liability pleaded in the underlying action lacked probable cause

  9. Laird v. Blacker

    2 Cal.4th 606 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 233 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the legislature expressly intended to disallow tolling under any circumstances not enumerated in the statute

  10. Sosinsky v. Grant

    6 Cal.App.4th 1548 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 191 times
    Holding it improper to take judicial notice of the truth of a court's factual findings where principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel do not apply

  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