rather lenient standard (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

rather lenient standard in California

18 California opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 8 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Parrish v. Latham & Watkinsgreen
cal · 2017 · cited in 5 California opinions naming this issue, 2023–2024
2 sentences

2024The law “ ‘[T]he probable cause element calls on the trial court to make an objective determination of the “reasonableness” of the defendant’s conduct, i.e., to determine whether, on the basis of the facts known to the defendant, the institution of the prior action was legally tenable,’ as opposed to whether the litigant subjectively believed the claim was tenable. [Citation.] A claim is unsupported by probable cause only if ‘ “ ‘any reasonable attorney would agree [that it is] totally and completely without merit.’ ” ’ [Citations.] ‘This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action ref

2024The law “ ‘[T]he probable cause element calls on the trial court to make an objective determination of the “reasonableness” of the defendant’s conduct, i.e., to determine whether, on the basis of the facts known to the defendant, the institution of the prior action was legally tenable,’ as opposed to whether the litigant subjectively believed the claim was tenable. [Citation.] A claim is unsupported by probable cause only if ‘ “ ‘any reasonable attorney would agree [that it is] totally and completely without merit.’ ” ’ [Citations.] ‘This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action ref

55
Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidesterred
cal · 2002 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2015
2 sentences

2015The "existence or nonexistence of probable cause is a legal question to be resolved by the court . . . ." (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 817 (Wilson).) "[P]robable cause is determined objectively, i.e., without reference to whether the attorney bringing the prior action believed the case was tenable." (Ibid.) The "standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the frivolousness of an appeal [citation], i.e., probable cause exists if 'any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.' [Citation.] This rather len

2015The "existence or nonexistence of probable cause is a legal question to be resolved by the court . . . ." (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 817 (Wilson).) "[P]robable cause is determined objectively, i.e., without reference to whether the attorney bringing the prior action believed the case was tenable." (Ibid.) The "standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the frivolousness of an appeal [citation], i.e., probable cause exists if 'any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.' [Citation.] This rather len

24
Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Olikergreen
cal · 1989 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2025
2 sentences

2025Beougher Had Probable Cause to Bring the Reformation Cause of Action “ ‘Probable cause is a low threshold designed to protect a litigant’s right to assert arguable legal claims even if the claims are extremely unlikely to succeed. “[T]he standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the frivolousness of an appeal [citation], i.e., probable cause exists if ‘any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.’ [Citation.] This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action reflects ‘the important public policy of avoiding the chilling of

2008(Wilson, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 817 ; Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 874 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 765 P.2d 498 ].) Probable cause is a low threshold designed to protect a litigant’s right to assert arguable legal claims even if the claims are extremely unlikely to succeed. “[T]he standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the fiivolousness of an appeal (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ]), i.e., probable cause exists if ‘any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim

12
Marijanovic v. Gray, York & Duffygreen
calctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015(Marijanovic v. Gray, York & Duffy (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1271 [“ ’This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action reflects “the important public policy of avoiding the chilling of novel or debatable legal claims.” ’ [Citation.]”].) “A litigant or attorney who possesses competent evidence to substantiate a legally cognizable claim for relief does not act tortiously by bringing the claim, even if also aware of evidence that will weigh against the claim.

11
Drummond v. Desmaraisgreen
calctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015Probable cause to bring an action exists where the suit is “arguably tenable, i.e., not so completely lacking in apparent merit that no reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.” (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 824 .) “This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action reflects ‘the important public policy of avoiding the chilling of novel or debatable legal claims.’ ” (Id. at p. 817.) In view of that policy, “[ojnly those actions that ‘ “any reasonable attorney would agree [are] totally and completely without merit” ’ may form the basis for

11
Jay v. Mahaffey CA4/3green
calctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Probable cause to bring an action exists where the suit is “arguably tenable, i.e., not so completely lacking in apparent merit that no reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.” (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 824 .) “This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action reflects ‘the important public policy of avoiding the chilling of novel or debatable legal claims.’ ” (Id. at p. 817.) In view of that policy, “[ojnly those actions that ‘ “any reasonable attorney would agree [are] totally and completely without merit” ’ may form the basis for

2015Probable cause to bring an action exists where the suit is “arguably tenable, i.e., not so completely lacking in apparent merit that no reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.” (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 824 .) “This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action reflects ‘the important public policy of avoiding the chilling of novel or debatable legal claims.’ ” (Id. at p. 817.) In view of that policy, “[ojnly those actions that ‘ “any reasonable attorney would agree [are] totally and completely without merit” ’ may form the basis for

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

CaseCitedYears
Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif green
cal · 2006
2 sentences

2024The law “ ‘[T]he probable cause element calls on the trial court to make an objective determination of the “reasonableness” of the defendant’s conduct, i.e., to determine whether, on the basis of the facts known to the defendant, the institution of the prior action was legally tenable,’ as opposed to whether the litigant subjectively believed the claim was tenable. [Citation.] A claim is unsupported by probable cause only if ‘ “ ‘any reasonable attorney would agree [that it is] totally and completely without merit.’ ” ’ [Citations.] ‘This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action ref

2023(Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 66 .) Malicious Prosecution - Lack of Probable Cause “The probable cause element of malicious prosecution ‘“calls on the trial court to make an objective determination of the ‘reasonableness’ of the defendant’s conduct, i.e., to determine whether, on the basis of the facts known to the defendant, the institution of the prior action was legally tenable” . . . . [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘A claim is unsupported by probable cause only if “‘“any reasonable attorney would agree [that it is] totally and completely without merit.”’” [Citation

62013–2024
Plumley v. Mockett green
calctapp · 2008
2 sentences

2026Probable Cause “‘Probable cause is a low threshold designed to protect a litigant’s right to assert arguable legal claims even if the claims are extremely unlikely to succeed. “[T]he standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the frivolousness of an appeal [citation], i.e., probable cause exists if ‘any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.’ [Citation.] This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action reflects ‘the important public policy of avoiding the chilling of novel or debatable legal claims.’ [Citation.] Attorneys

2025Beougher Had Probable Cause to Bring the Reformation Cause of Action “ ‘Probable cause is a low threshold designed to protect a litigant’s right to assert arguable legal claims even if the claims are extremely unlikely to succeed. “[T]he standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the frivolousness of an appeal [citation], i.e., probable cause exists if ‘any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.’ [Citation.] This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action reflects ‘the important public policy of avoiding the chilling of

42014–2026
Mendoza v. Wichmann green
calctapp · 2011
2 sentences

2026Probable Cause “‘Probable cause is a low threshold designed to protect a litigant’s right to assert arguable legal claims even if the claims are extremely unlikely to succeed. “[T]he standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the frivolousness of an appeal [citation], i.e., probable cause exists if ‘any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.’ [Citation.] This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action reflects ‘the important public policy of avoiding the chilling of novel or debatable legal claims.’ [Citation.] Attorneys

2025Beougher Had Probable Cause to Bring the Reformation Cause of Action “ ‘Probable cause is a low threshold designed to protect a litigant’s right to assert arguable legal claims even if the claims are extremely unlikely to succeed. “[T]he standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the frivolousness of an appeal [citation], i.e., probable cause exists if ‘any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.’ [Citation.] This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action reflects ‘the important public policy of avoiding the chilling of

42013–2026
In Re Marriage of Flaherty green
cal · 1982
2 sentences

2008(Wilson, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 817 ; Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 874 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 765 P.2d 498 ].) Probable cause is a low threshold designed to protect a litigant’s right to assert arguable legal claims even if the claims are extremely unlikely to succeed. “[T]he standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the fiivolousness of an appeal (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ]), i.e., probable cause exists if ‘any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim

2008(Wilson, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 817 ; Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 874 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 765 P.2d 498 ].) Probable cause is a low threshold designed to protect a litigant’s right to assert arguable legal claims even if the claims are extremely unlikely to succeed. “[T]he standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the fiivolousness of an appeal (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 646 P.2d 179 ]), i.e., probable cause exists if ‘any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim

22002–2008
KREEGER v. Wanland green
calctapp · 2006
1 sentence

2026(Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Associates, APC (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1113 .) “A claim of malicious prosecution may be based on a single ground for liability alleged in the complaint that lacks probable cause.” (Kreeger v. Wanland (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 826, 834 , citing Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 679 .) Here, Lahar was neither a party to the agreement nor to the letter of intent when Gilani filed the initial complaint and the first amended complaint.

12026–2026
Arcaro v. Silva & Silva Enterprises Corp. green
calctapp · 1999
1 sentence

2026Probable Cause “‘Probable cause is a low threshold designed to protect a litigant’s right to assert arguable legal claims even if the claims are extremely unlikely to succeed. “[T]he standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the frivolousness of an appeal [citation], i.e., probable cause exists if ‘any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.’ [Citation.] This rather lenient standard for bringing a civil action reflects ‘the important public policy of avoiding the chilling of novel or debatable legal claims.’ [Citation.] Attorneys

12026–2026
Cole v. Patricia a. Meyer & Associates, APC green
calctapp · 2012
1 sentence

2026(Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Associates, APC (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1113 .) “A claim of malicious prosecution may be based on a single ground for liability alleged in the complaint that lacks probable cause.” (Kreeger v. Wanland (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 826, 834 , citing Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 679 .) Here, Lahar was neither a party to the agreement nor to the letter of intent when Gilani filed the initial complaint and the first amended complaint.

12026–2026
Crowley v. Katleman green
cal · 1994
1 sentence

2026(Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Associates, APC (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1113 .) “A claim of malicious prosecution may be based on a single ground for liability alleged in the complaint that lacks probable cause.” (Kreeger v. Wanland (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 826, 834 , citing Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 679 .) Here, Lahar was neither a party to the agreement nor to the letter of intent when Gilani filed the initial complaint and the first amended complaint.

12026–2026
Ovando v. County of Los Angeles green
calctapp · 2008
1 sentence

2023(Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 66 .) Malicious Prosecution - Lack of Probable Cause “The probable cause element of malicious prosecution ‘“calls on the trial court to make an objective determination of the ‘reasonableness’ of the defendant’s conduct, i.e., to determine whether, on the basis of the facts known to the defendant, the institution of the prior action was legally tenable” . . . . [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘A claim is unsupported by probable cause only if “‘“any reasonable attorney would agree [that it is] totally and completely without merit.”’” [Citation

12023–2023
Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche green
cal · 2003
1 sentence

2015The "existence or nonexistence of probable cause is a legal question to be resolved by the court . . . ." (Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811, 817 (Wilson).) "[P]robable cause is determined objectively, i.e., without reference to whether the attorney bringing the prior action believed the case was tenable." (Ibid.) The "standard of probable cause to bring a civil suit [is] equivalent to that for determining the frivolousness of an appeal [citation], i.e., probable cause exists if 'any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable.' [Citation.] This rather len

12015–2015
Citi-Wide Preferred Couriers, Inc. v. Golden Eagle Insurance green
calctapp · 2004
1 sentence

2014Corp. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 906, 914 .) SFL presented evidence demonstrating: The mobile home park on Friendly Village’s property was built on top of a garbage dump.

12014–2014
Bertero v. National General Corp. green
cal · 1974
1 sentence

2013(Ibid.)” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Mendoza v. Wichmann (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1449 .) 31 “‘“[P]robable cause is lacking ‘when a prospective plaintiff and counsel do not have evidence sufficient to uphold a favorable judgment or information affording an inference that such evidence can be obtained for trial.’”’ [Citations.] ‘“In a situation of complete absence of supporting evidence, it cannot be adjudged reasonable to prosecute a claim.”’ ([ Soukup, supra,] 39 Cal.4th [at p.] 292.)” (Daniels, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 223 .) “As well, absence of probable cause can be shown by proof t

12013–2013
Daniels v. Robbins green
calctapp · 2010
1 sentence

2013(Ibid.)” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Mendoza v. Wichmann (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1449 .) 31 “‘“[P]robable cause is lacking ‘when a prospective plaintiff and counsel do not have evidence sufficient to uphold a favorable judgment or information affording an inference that such evidence can be obtained for trial.’”’ [Citations.] ‘“In a situation of complete absence of supporting evidence, it cannot be adjudged reasonable to prosecute a claim.”’ ([ Soukup, supra,] 39 Cal.4th [at p.] 292.)” (Daniels, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 223 .) “As well, absence of probable cause can be shown by proof t

12013–2013

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check