Legal Opinion

Baral v. Schnitt

California Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 2016No. S225090PublishedCited by 335 opinions

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

  1. Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Oasis West Realty v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  4. City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. 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

  1. Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.California Supreme Court · 2017
  2. Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2019
  3. Monster Energy Company v. SchechterCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  4. Barry v. State Bar of Cal.California Supreme Court · 2017
  5. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.California Supreme Court · 2019

330 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