Legal Opinion
ARP Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 27, 2006No. B179537, B181354PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
EPSTEIN, P. J.
In this case, we conclude that the reporting requirement in Civil Code section 2527 violates the free speech rights of prescription drug claims processors. We also conclude the court properly granted respondents’ special motion to strike and did not abuse its discretion in the award of attorney fees.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Civil Code section 2527, subdivision (b) 1 defines a prescription drug claims processor as “any nongovernmental entity which has a contractual relationship with purchasers of prepaid or insured prescription drug benefits, and which processes,…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Riley v. National Federation of Blind of North Carolina, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. TornilloSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Teacher OrganizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- Kimoanh Nguyen-Lam v. Sinh Cuong CaoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Stubbs v. StricklandNevada Supreme Court · 2013
- Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Data Base, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.