34 Cited authorities

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."
Burden v. Snowden
2 Cal.4th 556 (Cal. 1992) Cited 346 times
Docket No. S021885. April 30, 1992. Appeal from Superior Court of Orange County, No. 590772, William F. Rylaarsdam, Judge. COUNSEL Thomas Kathe, City Attorney, Filarsky Watt, Steve A. Filarsky, Pillsbury, Madison Sutro, Amy D. Hogue and Kevin M. Fong for Defendants and Appellants. Mayer Reeves, Thomas M. Reeves, Irving Berger, Martin J. Mayer, Whitmore, Johnson Bolanos, Richard S. Whitmore, Craig W. Patenaude and Helene L. Leichter as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants. John K. York
Flannery v. Prentice
26 Cal.4th 572 (Cal. 2001) Cited 184 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that fees awarded under Government Code section 12965 belong to the attorney rather than the plaintiff, absent a contrary agreement
Hirshfield v. Schwartz
91 Cal.App.4th 749 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 176 times
Holding that a court in equity, applying the hardship doctrine, may grant an easement that effectively denies the owner the use of his property
Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz
38 Cal.4th 1139 (Cal. 2006) Cited 120 times
Holding that state logging law did not preempt more restrictive local logging ordinance because the state law did "not require that every harvestable tree be cut"
Klein v. United States of America
50 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 2010) Cited 95 times 3 Legal Analyses
Certifying a question to the California Supreme Court because of doubts over whether the relevant intermediate court of appeals decision was correct
Halbert's Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
6 Cal.App.4th 1233 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 131 times 1 Legal Analyses
Describing the legislative history of the amended statute
Theodor v. Superior Court
8 Cal.3d 77 (Cal. 1972) Cited 191 times
In Theodor the phrase "Fourth Amendment" was used for convenience to refer to both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the similar provision of article I, section 13, of the California Constitution.
Mehdizadeh v. Mincer
46 Cal.App.4th 1296 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 88 times
Rejecting prescriptive easement that was limited to "landscaping and recreation" because the easement would leave the owner with "only a minimal right to use it"
In re Young
32 Cal.4th 900 (Cal. 2004) Cited 67 times
Evaluating inmate's claim of statutory entitlement to credit for performing a heroic act in prison

SCHER v. BURKE

34 Cited authorities

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 fees awarded under Government Code section 12965 belong to the attorney rather than the plaintiff, absent a contrary agreement

Holding that a court in equity, applying the hardship doctrine, may grant an easement that effectively denies the owner the use of his property

Holding that state logging law did not preempt more restrictive local logging ordinance because the state law did "not require that every harvestable tree be cut"

Certifying a question to the California Supreme Court because of doubts over whether the relevant intermediate court of appeals decision was correct

Describing the legislative history of the amended statute

In Theodor the phrase "Fourth Amendment" was used for convenience to refer to both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the similar provision of article I, section 13, of the California Constitution.

Rejecting prescriptive easement that was limited to "landscaping and recreation" because the easement would leave the owner with "only a minimal right to use it"

Evaluating inmate's claim of statutory entitlement to credit for performing a heroic act in prison