Baral v. Schnitt
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CORRIGAN, J.
California’s anti-SLAPP statute provides that “[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech . . . shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines . . . there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) This case raises a question that has perplexed the Courts of Appeal: How does the special motion to strike operate against a so-called ‘“mixed cause of action” that combines allegations of…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Oasis West Realty v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers' Mutual InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by335 opinions
- Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.California Supreme Court · 2017
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2019
- Monster Energy Company v. SchechterCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- Barry v. State Bar of Cal.California Supreme Court · 2017
- Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.California Supreme Court · 2019
330 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.