California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 48 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In the case provided for in subdivision (c) of Section 47, malice is not inferred from the communication.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1945–2025 · leading case: sdv/acci, Inc. v. at & T Corp., 522 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2008).
sdv/acci, Inc. v. at & T Corp., 522 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2008). “Cal. Civ.Code § 48. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving malice.”
Kashian v. Harriman, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4482 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “” (Civ. Code, § 48.) Application of the privilege involves a two-step analysis.”
Hailstone v. Martinez, 185 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3031 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “(Civ. Code, § 48.) Moreover, the malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is “actual malice.”
Hoffman v. Bailey, 257 F. Supp. 3d 801 (E.D. La. 2017). “(citing Cal. Civ. Code § 48 (c)). . Id. at 24-25 (citing Broome v.”
Tschirky v. Superior Court, 124 Cal. App. 3d 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “(Civ. Code, § 48; Locke v. Mitchell, supra, 7 Cal.”
Brewer v. Second Baptist Church, 197 P.2d 713 (Cal. 1948). “These facts considered with the language of the opening paragraph of the charges read to the church are clearly sufficient to support a finding of a malicious or improper motive for the publication on the part of Reverend Henderson.”
Anschutz Ent. Grp., Inc. v. Snepp, 171 Cal. App. 4th 598 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “” The letter refers to the December 19, 2006 broadcast and contains the following demand: “Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 48(a), demand is hereby made that NBC publish a complete and unequivocal retraction of the falsehoods contained in the December 19, 2006 broadcast…”
Rollenhagen v. City of Orange, 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2561 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “(Civ. Code, § 48.) There was no evidence whatsoever at trial that any defendant against whom this appeal is directed harbored any hatred or ill-will toward plaintiff Rollenhagen at any time.”
Smith v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins., 177 Cal. App. 3d 625 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). “) The privilege of Civil Code section 47 quoted above appears on the face of Smith’s complaint. State Savings and Loan was interested in the title report, and requested it from Commonwealth.”
Narayan v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 284 F. Supp. 3d 1076 (E.D. Cal. 2018). “Cal. Civ. Code § 48 . And, contrary to Plaintiff's apparent belief that specificity is not required, Plaintiff must specifically allege actual malice.”
Lesperance v. North Am. Aviation, Inc., 217 Cal. App. 2d 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963). “3 Civil Code section 48 provided that in the cáse;provided for in-Civil Code section 47, subdivision 3, “malice is not inferred from the communication,” (Footnote ours.”
Hill v. Allan, 259 Cal. App. 2d 470 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968). “Malice will not be inferred from the mere fact of communication (Civ. Code, §48). The Nielsons ’ right to apportion the easement was not *491 definitely and legally determined until the conclusion of the instant action.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 48(a) — 1 case
Anschutz Ent. Grp., Inc. v. Snepp, 171 Cal. App. 4th 598 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “” The letter refers to the December 19, 2006 broadcast and contains the following demand: “Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 48(a), demand is hereby made that NBC publish a complete and unequivocal retraction of the falsehoods contained in the December 19, 2006 broadcast…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.