Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HINZ, J.
Introduction
The litigation privilege in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), 1 has at times seemed to protect virtually anyone participating in litigation from subsequent suit. Nevertheless, California precedent does not authorize, and the policies underlying the privilege do not support, its use to protect a negligent expert witness from liability to the party who hired that witness. We therefore conclude that the trial court erroneously relied upon the privilege in granting summary judgment in favor of the expert witness.
The case at bench arose out of litigation in federal…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Lucido v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Silberg v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Mann v. CracchioloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Kimmel v. GolandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- 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
- Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. DakarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Kolar v. Donahue, McIntosh & HammertonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.