Legal Opinion
Christian Research Institute v. Alnor
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 28, 2007No. G036587PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ARONSON, J.
Defendant William Alnor appeals the trial court’s denial of his special motion to strike brought under the anti-SLAPP statute.1 (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)2 Alnor contends plaintiffs Hank Hanegraaff and Christian Research Institute (CRI) failed to meet their burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on their defamation complaint because they failed to show by clear and convincing evidence Alnor’s statement about plaintiffs was false or that Alnor acted with malice.
We conclude the law does not require a defamation plaintiff to prove falsity by clear and convincing…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Curtis Publishing Co. v. ButtsSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Wong v. JingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Christian Research Institute v. AlnorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Neville v. CHUDACOFFCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Cross v. CooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Tichinin v. City of Morgan HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.