Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester

California Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 2002No. S097444PublishedCited by 267 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WERDEGAR, J.

One of the elements of an action for malicious prosecution is the absence of probable cause for bringing the prior action. (Sheldon *815Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 874 [254 Cal.Rptr. 336, 765 P.2d 498].) The question presented here is whether the trial court’s denial, in the prior action, of a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) establishes that probable cause did exist for bringing the action, precluding maintenance of the malicious prosecution suit…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. United Mine Workers v. PenningtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Porous Media Corporation v. Pall CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
  5. In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by267 opinions

  1. Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Oasis West Realty v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert HafifCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Rusheen v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarcheCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003

262 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API