30 Cited authorities

Navellier v. Sletten
29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) Cited 1,917 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding a claim for relief filed in federal district court is protected activity
Equilon Enterprises, Llc. v. Consumer Cause, Inc.
29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002) Cited 1,787 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"
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"
Baral v. Schnitt
1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) Cited 900 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding a claim "supported by allegations of protected and unprotected activity in a single cause of action," cannot "escape[] review if the [non-moving party] shows a probability of prevailing on the allegations that are not covered by the anti-SLAPP statute"
Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif
39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006) Cited 1,150 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the question is whether "the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited" (citation and punctuation omitted)
Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche
31 Cal.4th 728 (Cal. 2003) Cited 997 times
Holding that malicious prosecution claim arising from attorney's representation of client was subject to anti-SLAPP statute
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."
People v. Lee
51 Cal.4th 620 (Cal. 2011) Cited 679 times
Finding of premeditation supported, where fact that defendant carried a loaded handgun indicated he had considered the possibility of a violent encounter
Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino
35 Cal.4th 180 (Cal. 2005) Cited 639 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"
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"

SWEETWATER UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY

30 Cited authorities

Holding a claim for relief filed in federal district court is protected activity

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

Holding a claim "supported by allegations of protected and unprotected activity in a single cause of action," cannot "escape[] review if the [non-moving party] shows a probability of prevailing on the allegations that are not covered by the anti-SLAPP statute"

Holding that the question is whether "the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited" (citation and punctuation omitted)

Holding that malicious prosecution claim arising from attorney's representation of client was subject to anti-SLAPP statute

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."

Finding of premeditation supported, where fact that defendant carried a loaded handgun indicated he had considered the possibility of a violent encounter

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"

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"