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.
9 California opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rusheen v. Cohengreen2 sentences2013(Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1063 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 516 , 128 P.3d 713 ].) In other words, the privilege seeks to encourage free access to the courts and finality of judgments by limiting tort claims arising out of litigation-related misconduct and by favoring sanctions within the original lawsuit. 2013(Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1063 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 516 , 128 P.3d 713 ].) In other words, the privilege seeks to encourage free access to the courts and finality of judgments by limiting tort claims arising out of litigation-related misconduct and by favoring sanctions within the original lawsuit. | 1 | 2 |
Rubin v. Greengreen2 sentences2013(Silberg, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 212 ; see Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187, 1194-1195 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 847 P.2d 1044 ] (Rubin).) Moreover, the privilege is absolute *1274 in nature, applying “ ‘to all publications, irrespective of their maliciousness.’ ” (Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1241 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 , 163 P.3d 89 ], italics omitted (Action Apartment).) The purposes of the litigation privilege are to afford litigants and witnesses free access to the courts without fear of being harassed by later derivative tort actions; encour 2013(Silberg, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 212 ; see Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187, 1194-1195 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 847 P.2d 1044 ] (Rubin).) Moreover, the privilege is absolute *1274 in nature, applying “ ‘to all publications, irrespective of their maliciousness.’ ” (Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1241 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 , 163 P.3d 89 ], italics omitted (Action Apartment).) The purposes of the litigation privilege are to afford litigants and witnesses free access to the courts without fear of being harassed by later derivative tort actions; encour | 1 | 1 |
Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monicagreen2 sentences2013(Silberg, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 212 ; see Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187, 1194-1195 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 847 P.2d 1044 ] (Rubin).) Moreover, the privilege is absolute *1274 in nature, applying “ ‘to all publications, irrespective of their maliciousness.’ ” (Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1241 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 , 163 P.3d 89 ], italics omitted (Action Apartment).) The purposes of the litigation privilege are to afford litigants and witnesses free access to the courts without fear of being harassed by later derivative tort actions; encour 2013(Silberg, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 212 ; see Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187, 1194-1195 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 847 P.2d 1044 ] (Rubin).) Moreover, the privilege is absolute *1274 in nature, applying “ ‘to all publications, irrespective of their maliciousness.’ ” (Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1241 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 , 163 P.3d 89 ], italics omitted (Action Apartment).) The purposes of the litigation privilege are to afford litigants and witnesses free access to the courts without fear of being harassed by later derivative tort actions; encour | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Conliffegreen2 sentences2004Code, § 47 , subd. (b)(2)) is commonly referred to as the "litigation privilege." (See Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634 , 641 .) "Although originally enacted with reference to defamation [citation], the privilege is now held applicable to any communication [made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding], whether or not it amounts to a publication [citations], and all torts except malicious prosecution. [Citations.]" ( Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205 , 211-212 ; accord, Moore v. Conliffe , supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 641 ; see Budwin v. American Psychological Assn. (1994) 24 Cal.App 2004Code, § 47 , subd. (b)(2)) is commonly referred to as the "litigation privilege." (See Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634 , 641 .) "Although originally enacted with reference to defamation [citation], the privilege is now held applicable to any communication [made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding], whether or not it amounts to a publication [citations], and all torts except malicious prosecution. [Citations.]" ( Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205 , 211-212 ; accord, Moore v. Conliffe , supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 641 ; see Budwin v. American Psychological Assn. (1994) 24 Cal.App | 1 | 1 |
Budwin v. American Psychological Assn.green1 sentence2004Code, § 47 , subd. (b)(2)) is commonly referred to as the "litigation privilege." (See Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634 , 641 .) "Although originally enacted with reference to defamation [citation], the privilege is now held applicable to any communication [made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding], whether or not it amounts to a publication [citations], and all torts except malicious prosecution. [Citations.]" ( Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205 , 211-212 ; accord, Moore v. Conliffe , supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 641 ; see Budwin v. American Psychological Assn. (1994) 24 Cal.App | 1 | 1 |
Blanton v. Womancare, Inc.green2 sentences1994Because such a proceeding is designed to serve a function analogous to—and typically to eliminate the need to resort to—the court system (see, e.g., Blanton v. Womancare, Inc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396, 402, fn. 5 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 151 , 696 P.2d 645 , 48 A.L.R.4th 109 ]), the need for an absolute privilege to foster the giving of complete and truthful testimony is as vital in the private contractual arbitration setting as it is in a court proceeding. 1994Because such a proceeding is designed to serve a function analogous to—and typically to eliminate the need to resort to—the court system (see, e.g., Blanton v. Womancare, Inc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396, 402, fn. 5 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 151 , 696 P.2d 645 , 48 A.L.R.4th 109 ]), the need for an absolute privilege to foster the giving of complete and truthful testimony is as vital in the private contractual arbitration setting as it is in a court proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Silberg v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2013(Silberg, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 212 ; see Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187, 1194-1195 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 847 P.2d 1044 ] (Rubin).) Moreover, the privilege is absolute *1274 in nature, applying “ ‘to all publications, irrespective of their maliciousness.’ ” (Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1241 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 , 163 P.3d 89 ], italics omitted (Action Apartment).) The purposes of the litigation privilege are to afford litigants and witnesses free access to the courts without fear of being harassed by later derivative tort actions; encour 2004Code, § 47 , subd. (b)(2)) is commonly referred to as the "litigation privilege." (See Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634 , 641 .) "Although originally enacted with reference to defamation [citation], the privilege is now held applicable to any communication [made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding], whether or not it amounts to a publication [citations], and all torts except malicious prosecution. [Citations.]" ( Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205 , 211-212 ; accord, Moore v. Conliffe , supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 641 ; see Budwin v. American Psychological Assn. (1994) 24 Cal.App | 3 | 1994–2013 |
Optional Capital, Inc. v. DAS Corp.
green
2 sentences2019The litigation privilege's purposes are "to encourage open channels of communication and zealous advocacy, to promote complete and truthful testimony," and "to promote effective judicial proceedings by encouraging full communication." ( Optional Capital, Inc. v. DAS Corp., supra , 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1404 , 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 705 .) Thus, the privilege does not extend to noncommunicative conduct that is not *822 of necessity related to communicative conduct. 2019The litigation privilege's purposes are "to encourage open channels of communication and zealous advocacy, to promote complete and truthful testimony," and "to promote effective judicial proceedings by encouraging full communication." ( Optional Capital, Inc. v. DAS Corp., supra , 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1404 , 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 705 .) Thus, the privilege does not extend to noncommunicative conduct that is not *822 of necessity related to communicative conduct. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Wentland v. Wass
green
2 sentences2013As noted above, Wentland teaches that the determination of whether the litigation privilege applies to preclude an action for breach of contract turns on whether applying the privilege “furthers the policies underlying the privilege.” (Wentland, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 1492 .) The purposes of the litigation privilege are to: ensure access to the courts free of the fear of being subject to derivative actions, promote complete and truthful testimony, encourage zealous advocacy, give finality to judgments, and avoid unending litigation. 2008Like the example of the covenant not to sue in Navellier 11, [supra, 106 Cal.App.4th 763 ], here application of the privilege would frustrate the purpose of the Parkview Terrace agreement.” (Wentland, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 1494 , italics added.) *1497 The Wentland court then turned to the purposes of the litigation privilege and found they were not served by its application to the confidentiality agreement. | 2 | 2008–2013 |
Aghaian v. Minassian
green
1 sentence2022The acts of filing the sham complaint and agreeing to the stipulated judgment, though communicative in nature, were not the gravamen of Chen’s fraudulent transfer cause of action.” (Ibid., original italics.) The appellate court rejected defendant Sharmad’s assertion that failure to apply the privilege “ ‘would frustrate the purposes of the litigation privilege’ ” (ibid.), holding that “[l]evying on property as part of a scheme to defeat a creditor’s rights in violation of the UVTA is not communicative conduct; therefore, extending the litigation privilege to such conduct advances none of the p | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Navellier v. Sletten
green
1 sentence2008Like the example of the covenant not to sue in Navellier 11, [supra, 106 Cal.App.4th 763 ], here application of the privilege would frustrate the purpose of the Parkview Terrace agreement.” (Wentland, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 1494 , italics added.) *1497 The Wentland court then turned to the purposes of the litigation privilege and found they were not served by its application to the confidentiality agreement. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2004Code, § 47 , subd. (b)(2)) is commonly referred to as the "litigation privilege." (See Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634 , 641 .) "Although originally enacted with reference to defamation [citation], the privilege is now held applicable to any communication [made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding], whether or not it amounts to a publication [citations], and all torts except malicious prosecution. [Citations.]" ( Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205 , 211-212 ; accord, Moore v. Conliffe , supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 641 ; see Budwin v. American Psychological Assn. (1994) 24 Cal.App | 1 | 2004–2004 |
O'NEIL v. Cunningham
green
1 sentence2004Code, § 47 , subd. (b)(2)) is commonly referred to as the "litigation privilege." (See Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634 , 641 .) "Although originally enacted with reference to defamation [citation], the privilege is now held applicable to any communication [made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding], whether or not it amounts to a publication [citations], and all torts except malicious prosecution. [Citations.]" ( Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205 , 211-212 ; accord, Moore v. Conliffe , supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 641 ; see Budwin v. American Psychological Assn. (1994) 24 Cal.App | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.