Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carsongreen2 sentences2023That requires an affirmative answer to the second question, “whether the activity contributed to public discussion of that issue.” (Geiser, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 1246; see also Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson (2019) 6 Cal.5th 610, 625 [“we reject the proposition that any connection at all—however fleeting or tangential—between the challenged conduct and an issue of public interest would suffice to satisfy the requirements of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4)”; “[a]t a sufficiently high level of generalization, any conduct can appear rationally related to a broader issue of public impo 2021What a court scrutinizing the nature of speech in the anti-SLAPP context must focus on is the speech at hand, rather than the prospects that such speech may conceivably have indirect consequences for an issue of public concern.” (Rand Resources, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 625 .) The court “reject[ed] the proposition that any connection at all—however fleeting or tangential— between the challenged conduct and an issue of public interest would suffice to satisfy the requirements of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4).” (Ibid.) The court acknowledged that “who precisely represents a city in sports fra | 1 | 2 |
Geiser v. Kuhnsgreen1 sentence2023That requires an affirmative answer to the second question, “whether the activity contributed to public discussion of that issue.” (Geiser, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 1246; see also Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson (2019) 6 Cal.5th 610, 625 [“we reject the proposition that any connection at all—however fleeting or tangential—between the challenged conduct and an issue of public interest would suffice to satisfy the requirements of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4)”; “[a]t a sufficiently high level of generalization, any conduct can appear rationally related to a broader issue of public impo | 1 | 1 |
San Diegans for Open Government v. Har Construction CA4/1green1 sentence2020Examining the allegations of the Petition, as the Court must, and the Court has determined that the allegations satisfy the requirements of CCP §425.16(b). [sic] See, San Diegans for Open Government v. Har Construction (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 611, 628 [the application of the public interest exemption is determined by examining the allegations of the complaint]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang
green
1 sentence2021What a court scrutinizing the nature of speech in the anti-SLAPP context must focus on is the speech at hand, rather than the prospects that such speech may conceivably have indirect consequences for an issue of public concern.” (Rand Resources, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 625 .) The court “reject[ed] the proposition that any connection at all—however fleeting or tangential— between the challenged conduct and an issue of public interest would suffice to satisfy the requirements of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4).” (Ibid.) The court acknowledged that “who precisely represents a city in sports fra | 1 | 2021–2021 |
NYGÅRD, INC. v. Uusi-Kerttula
green
1 sentence2021(See Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson, 25 supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 625 [“we reject the proposition that any connection at all—however fleeting or tangential—between the challenged conduct and an issue of public interest would suffice to satisfy the requirements of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4)”; “[w]hat a court scrutinizing the nature of speech in the anti-SLAPP context must focus on is the speech at hand, rather than the prospects that such speech may conceivably have indirect consequences for an issue of public concern”].) The public interest requirement of section 425.16, subdivisio | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bikkina v. Mahadevan
green
2 sentences2019(See, e.g., Jewett v. Capital One Bank (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 805 , 814, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 [reversing the grant of a special motion to strike when "the attempt to connect the solicitations [the speech at hand] with an issue of public interest is tenuous at best"]; Bikkina v. Mahadevan (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 70 , 84, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 499 ( Bikkina ) [holding that the defendant's statements did not qualify as being in connection with an issue of public interest when the "statements were only remotely related to the broader subject of global warming or climate change"].) At a sufficiently high lev 2019(See, e.g., Jewett v. Capital One Bank (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 805 , 814, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 [reversing the grant of a special motion to strike when "the attempt to connect the solicitations [the speech at hand] with an issue of public interest is tenuous at best"]; Bikkina v. Mahadevan (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 70 , 84, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 499 ( Bikkina ) [holding that the defendant's statements did not qualify as being in connection with an issue of public interest when the "statements were only remotely related to the broader subject of global warming or climate change"].) At a sufficiently high lev | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jewett v. Capital One Bank
green
2 sentences2019(See, e.g., Jewett v. Capital One Bank (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 805 , 814, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 [reversing the grant of a special motion to strike when "the attempt to connect the solicitations [the speech at hand] with an issue of public interest is tenuous at best"]; Bikkina v. Mahadevan (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 70 , 84, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 499 ( Bikkina ) [holding that the defendant's statements did not qualify as being in connection with an issue of public interest when the "statements were only remotely related to the broader subject of global warming or climate change"].) At a sufficiently high lev 2019(See, e.g., Jewett v. Capital One Bank (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 805 , 814, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 [reversing the grant of a special motion to strike when "the attempt to connect the solicitations [the speech at hand] with an issue of public interest is tenuous at best"]; Bikkina v. Mahadevan (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 70 , 84, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 499 ( Bikkina ) [holding that the defendant's statements did not qualify as being in connection with an issue of public interest when the "statements were only remotely related to the broader subject of global warming or climate change"].) At a sufficiently high lev | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.