§Why CasetextPricing

NEWPORT HARBOR VENTURES v. MORRIS CERULLO WORLD EVANGELISM

Appellants, Lynn Hodge, Roger Artz, and Morris Cerullo, Petition for Review

32 Cited authorities

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

    29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,788 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"

  2. Baral v. Schnitt

    1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 902 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"

  3. City of Cotati v. Cashman

    29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,264 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"

  4. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.

    21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,295 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the discovery rule "postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action, until, that is, he at least suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for its elements"

  5. Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino

    35 Cal.4th 180 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 641 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"

  6. 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

  7. Crowley v. Katleman

    8 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 604 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a suit for malicious prosecution lies for bringing an action charging multiple grounds of liability when some but not all of those grounds were asserted with malice and without probable cause"

  8. HMS Capital Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co.

    118 Cal.App.4th 204 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 371 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff made prima facie showing in opposing anti-SLAPP motion through circumstantial evidence establishing malice element of malicious prosecution claim

  9. Kajima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

    23 Cal.4th 305 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 224 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in California a promise is enforceable absent consideration if the promisor should reasonably expect the promisee to rely on the promise, the promisee does rely on the promise, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise

  10. Hedging Concepts, Inc. v. First Alliance Mortgage Co.

    41 Cal.App.4th 1410 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 207 times
    Holding that claim for quantum meruit does not lie where there are actual contract terms governing payment

  11. Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1105   Cited 2,093 times

    (a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion

  12. 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