Legal Opinion

Moore v. Conliffe

California Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1994No. S031410PublishedCited by 86 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GEORGE, J.

In this case we must decide whether a witness who testifies at a deposition held in connection with a private, contractual arbitration proceeding is subject to being sued in a tort action on the basis of statements made in the course of such testimony, or instead, like any witness in a court proceeding, is immunized from tort liability by virtue of the “litigation privilege” embodied in Civil Code section 47, subdivision *638(b) (hereafter section 47(b)).1 As we shall explain, in view of the purpose and history of the litigation privilege and the numerous California decisions…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Briscoe v. LaHueSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Silberg v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Albertson v. RaboffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956

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

3Cited by86 opinions

  1. W. Michael Kimes J. Colette Boykin v. Peter G. Stone, Judge, Superior Court Robert L. Mezzetti, II Henry Mariani Robert MacHadoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  2. Hassan v. Mercy American River HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Hagberg v. California Federal Bank FSBCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University, LlcCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
  5. McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006

81 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