Cal. Codes » Penal Code
California Codes

Cal. Penal Code § 158 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Rubin v. Green, 847 P.2d 1044 (Cal. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rubin v. Green, 847 P.2d 1044 (Cal. 1993). · cites it 2× “" (Pen. Code, §§ 158, 159.) The modern successor of common law barratry, solicitation, is not only a misdemeanor when accomplished through the use of agents, but is also subject to discipline by the State Bar.”
Bidna v. Rosen, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7354 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “[1] Also, the rule is that plaintiff's factual allegations must be presumed true and liberally construed upon review of a demurrer sustained without leave to amend.”
Kinney Shoe Corp., a New York Corp. v. Bob W. Vorhes & John A. Wagner, 564 F.2d 859 (9th Cir. 1977). “2d 449 (1975); Cal. Penal Code § 158 (barratry). The notice proviso was refused.”
State v. Duffey, 981 P.2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “§ 16-22-208 (Michie 1994); Cal. Penal Code § 158 (West 1999); Conn. Gen.”
People v. Sanford, 202 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 1 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1988). “4 Penal Code section 158 defines barratry as “the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings.”
Howard v. Superior Court, 52 Cal. App. 3d 722 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975). “133-135) and has been carried into the Penal Code as a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, §§ 158, 159). These sections indicate the continued presence of a policy against the excitation of vexatious litigation.”
People v. Sanford, 202 Cal. App. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). “*4 Penal Code section 158 defines barratry as "the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings.”
(PS) Crocker v. Cnty. of Amador (E.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 2× “nd McElfish; (2) Bane Act against defendants the County, 17 Coletti, McElfish, Gillaspie, Rice, Sexton, Hermanson, Adamson, and Riebe; (3) Violation of 18 Article 1 § 13 of the California Constitution against all defendants (unreasonable search and 19 seizure); (4) Negligence…”
(PS) Crocker v. Cnty. of Amador (E.D. Cal. 2023). “1); (3) violation of Article 1, § 13 of the California Constitution; (4) Negligence; (5) Battery; 27 (6) Barratry pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 158 ; (7) Municipal Liability pursuant to 42 U.”
(PS) Crocker v. Cnty. of Amador (E.D. Cal. 2024). “1); (3) violation of Article 1, § 13 of the California Constitution; (4) 3 Negligence; (5) Battery; (6) Barratry pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 158 ; (7) Municipal Liability 4 pursuant to 42 U.”
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.