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 1 courts 1999–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Argentieri v. Zuckerberggreen2 sentences2025To my knowledge based on information provided to me, [Kavanaugh] has and is investing heavily in this business and any reference to ESX or any related business as a “Ponzi Scheme” is not accurate.’” Without Spar’s retraction, defendants’ reports led the listener “to be affected differently by the report[s] than he or she would be by the actual truth.” (Argentieri, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 788 .) Thus, the fair and true report privilege does not apply to the complained of statements. [Citation.]’ ([E.g., ]Peregrine Funding, [supra,] 133 Cal.App.4th [at p.] 676.) Others suggest that the litiga 2024Under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d)(1), the fair report privilege protects a “ ‘fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of . . . a judicial . . . proceeding, or anything said in the course thereof.’ ” (Argentieri v. Zuckerberg (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 768, 787 (Argentieri).) The fair and true report privilege is “absolute”—“that is, it applies regardless of the defendants’ motive for making the report—and forecloses a plaintiff from showing a probability of prevailing on the merits.” (Ibid.) We thus analyze the Lillys’ claim of the fair and true report privilege | 1 | 2 |
Balzaga v. Fox News Network, LLCgreen2 sentences2024Defamation actions cannot be based on snippets taken out of context.” (J-M Manufacturing, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 100 [cleaned up]; see also Balzaga, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338 .) For these reasons, we conclude that 14 of the 15 allegedly defamatory statements attributed to the Lillys are protected by the fair and true report privilege, and Bond is thus barred from litigating claims based on these statements. 2. 2024Defamation actions cannot be based on snippets taken out of context.” (J-M Manufacturing, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 100 [cleaned up]; see also Balzaga, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338 .) For these reasons, we conclude that 14 of the 15 allegedly defamatory statements attributed to the Lillys are protected by the fair and true report privilege, and Bond is thus barred from litigating claims based on these statements. 2. | 1 | 1 |
J-M Manufacturing Co. v. Phillips & Cohen LLPgreen1 sentence2024Defamation actions cannot be based on snippets taken out of context.” (J-M Manufacturing, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 100 [cleaned up]; see also Balzaga, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338 .) For these reasons, we conclude that 14 of the 15 allegedly defamatory statements attributed to the Lillys are protected by the fair and true report privilege, and Bond is thus barred from litigating claims based on these statements. 2. | 1 | 1 |
Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernard, Weiss & Karma Inc.green2 sentences1999Rather, the article accurately conveyed the gist and sting of the deposition testimony. ( McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, at pp. 976-977, 234 Cal.Rptr. 702 ; see also Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1168 , 232 Cal.Rptr. 567 , 728 P.2d 1202 [for purposes of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), which protects statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding, answers and questions at depositions are such statements].) Under the above authorities, we are compelled to conclude that the deposition testimony of R 1999Rather, the article accurately conveyed the gist and sting of the deposition testimony. ( McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, at pp. 976-977, 234 Cal.Rptr. 702 ; see also Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1168 , 232 Cal.Rptr. 567 , 728 P.2d 1202 [for purposes of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), which protects statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding, answers and questions at depositions are such statements].) Under the above authorities, we are compelled to conclude that the deposition testimony of R | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sipple v. Foundation for National Progress
green
2 sentences2022In short, the reports’ statements relating to West’s allegations and the interviews with West and Hakala may have “expanded on the theme but did not otherwise alter the substance of the privileged material such that a reader would be affected differently if the information garnered by interviews [with West and Hakala] were not included.” (Sipple, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 245 .)7 Thus, the trial court erred in failing to grant the Fox defendants’ special motion to strike as to these statements in the 7 It is a closer call whether the references in the May 15 report to Hakala’s statements at 2014Progress (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 226, 240 .) Sparks contends TMZ violated the fair and true report privilege to “purposely make a false impression to the public in their publication that Mr. Sparks is guilty of emotional mental problems, negative traits and a dangerous ambiguously dangerous stalker.” The argument is unavailing. | 2 | 2014–2022 |
Dickinson v. Cosby
green
1 sentence2025To my knowledge based on information provided to me, [Kavanaugh] has and is investing heavily in this business and any reference to ESX or any related business as a “Ponzi Scheme” is not accurate.’” Without Spar’s retraction, defendants’ reports led the listener “to be affected differently by the report[s] than he or she would be by the actual truth.” (Argentieri, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 788 .) Thus, the fair and true report privilege does not apply to the complained of statements. [Citation.]’ ([E.g., ]Peregrine Funding, [supra,] 133 Cal.App.4th [at p.] 676.) Others suggest that the litiga | 1 | 2025–2025 |
1100 PARK LANE ASSOCIATES v. Feldman
green
1 sentence2025To my knowledge based on information provided to me, [Kavanaugh] has and is investing heavily in this business and any reference to ESX or any related business as a “Ponzi Scheme” is not accurate.’” Without Spar’s retraction, defendants’ reports led the listener “to be affected differently by the report[s] than he or she would be by the actual truth.” (Argentieri, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 788 .) Thus, the fair and true report privilege does not apply to the complained of statements. [Citation.]’ ([E.g., ]Peregrine Funding, [supra,] 133 Cal.App.4th [at p.] 676.) Others suggest that the litiga | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
green
1 sentence2025To my knowledge based on information provided to me, [Kavanaugh] has and is investing heavily in this business and any reference to ESX or any related business as a “Ponzi Scheme” is not accurate.’” Without Spar’s retraction, defendants’ reports led the listener “to be affected differently by the report[s] than he or she would be by the actual truth.” (Argentieri, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 788 .) Thus, the fair and true report privilege does not apply to the complained of statements. [Citation.]’ ([E.g., ]Peregrine Funding, [supra,] 133 Cal.App.4th [at p.] 676.) Others suggest that the litiga | 1 | 2025–2025 |
McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1999Rather, the article accurately conveyed the gist and sting of the deposition testimony. ( McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, at pp. 976-977, 234 Cal.Rptr. 702 ; see also Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1168 , 232 Cal.Rptr. 567 , 728 P.2d 1202 [for purposes of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), which protects statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding, answers and questions at depositions are such statements].) Under the above authorities, we are compelled to conclude that the deposition testimony of R | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.