Legal Opinion
Lam v. Ngo
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 21, 2001No. G026329PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SILLS, P. J.
I. Introduction
This appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP suit motion requires us to come to the following conclusions:(1) Because the Legislature has specified that the anti-SLAPP suit law (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) is to be construed broadly, the provision in the law that a special motion to strike “may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint” (§ 425.16, subd. (f)) includes amended as well as original complaints. (See DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 565 [92 Cal.Rptr.2d 755] [considering anti-SLAPP motion to…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Texas v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Flatley v. MauroCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Kashian v. HarrimanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Wilbanks v. WolkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Gilbert v. SykesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Nagel v. Twin Laboratories, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.