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 1972–2003 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kachig v. Boothegreen2 sentences2003Since there is no exception to the privilege when the testimony is perjured, by a parity of reasoning no exception should apply to the preparation and presentation of false documentary evidence.”]; Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 393 ] [litigation privilege protected peijury, as well as manufactured evidence].) Moreover, the presence or absence of malice or good or bad faith is irrelevant to the inquiry whether the litigation privilege is applicable. 2003Since there is no exception to the privilege when the testimony is perjured, by a parity of reasoning no exception should apply to the preparation and presentation of false documentary evidence.”]; Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 393 ] [litigation privilege protected peijury, as well as manufactured evidence].) Moreover, the presence or absence of malice or good or bad faith is irrelevant to the inquiry whether the litigation privilege is applicable. | 1 | 3 |
Pettitt v. Levygreen2 sentences2003Since there is no exception to the privilege when the testimony is perjured, by a parity of reasoning no exception should apply to the preparation and presentation of false documentary evidence."]; Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 393 [litigation privilege protected perjury, as well as manufactured evidence].) Moreover, the presence or absence of malice or good or bad faith is irrelevant to the inquiry whether the litigation privilege is applicable. ( Silberg v. Anderson, supra, 50 Cal.3d 205, 216 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 638 , 786 P.2d 365 ["it must be concluded that the `witho 2003Since there is no exception to the privilege when the testimony is perjured, by a parity of reasoning no exception should apply to the preparation and presentation of false documentary evidence."]; Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 393 [litigation privilege protected perjury, as well as manufactured evidence].) Moreover, the presence or absence of malice or good or bad faith is irrelevant to the inquiry whether the litigation privilege is applicable. ( Silberg v. Anderson, supra, 50 Cal.3d 205, 216 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 638 , 786 P.2d 365 ["it must be concluded that the `witho | 1 | 2 |
Silberg v. Andersongreen2 sentences2003Since there is no exception to the privilege when the testimony is perjured, by a parity of reasoning no exception should apply to the preparation and presentation of false documentary evidence."]; Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 393 [litigation privilege protected perjury, as well as manufactured evidence].) Moreover, the presence or absence of malice or good or bad faith is irrelevant to the inquiry whether the litigation privilege is applicable. ( Silberg v. Anderson, supra, 50 Cal.3d 205, 216 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 638 , 786 P.2d 365 ["it must be concluded that the `witho 2003Since there is no exception to the privilege when the testimony is perjured, by a parity of reasoning no exception should apply to the preparation and presentation of false documentary evidence."]; Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 393 [litigation privilege protected perjury, as well as manufactured evidence].) Moreover, the presence or absence of malice or good or bad faith is irrelevant to the inquiry whether the litigation privilege is applicable. ( Silberg v. Anderson, supra, 50 Cal.3d 205, 216 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 638 , 786 P.2d 365 ["it must be concluded that the `witho | 1 | 2 |
Agostini v. Stryculagreen2 sentences1972(Agostini v. Strycula (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 804, 808 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 314 ]; Kachig v. Boothe, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 641.) Appellants point to the language of Albertson v. Raboff, supra, 46 Cal.2d 375 , at page 380, to the effect that the privilege applies to any publication that is “permitted” by law, as inferentially denying the privilege to false documents. 1972(Agostini v. Strycula (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 804, 808 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 314 ]; Kachig v. Boothe, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 641.) Appellants point to the language of Albertson v. Raboff, supra, 46 Cal.2d 375 , at page 380, to the effect that the privilege applies to any publication that is “permitted” by law, as inferentially denying the privilege to false documents. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Albertson v. Raboff
green
2 sentences2003Since there is no exception to the privilege when the testimony is perjured, by a parity of reasoning no exception should apply to the preparation and presentation of false documentary evidence."]; Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 393 [litigation privilege protected perjury, as well as manufactured evidence].) Moreover, the presence or absence of malice or good or bad faith is irrelevant to the inquiry whether the litigation privilege is applicable. ( Silberg v. Anderson, supra, 50 Cal.3d 205, 216 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 638 , 786 P.2d 365 ["it must be concluded that the `witho 2003Since there is no exception to the privilege when the testimony is perjured, by a parity of reasoning no exception should apply to the preparation and presentation of false documentary evidence."]; Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 393 [litigation privilege protected perjury, as well as manufactured evidence].) Moreover, the presence or absence of malice or good or bad faith is irrelevant to the inquiry whether the litigation privilege is applicable. ( Silberg v. Anderson, supra, 50 Cal.3d 205, 216 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 638 , 786 P.2d 365 ["it must be concluded that the `witho | 3 | 1972–2003 |
Ribas v. Clark
green
2 sentences1986In Ribas v. Clark (1985) 38 Cal.3d 355 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 143 , 696 P.2d 637 ], the court showed no hesitation in applying the privilege to testimony in a judicial proceeding. 1986In Ribas v. Clark (1985) 38 Cal.3d 355 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 143 , 696 P.2d 637 ], the court showed no hesitation in applying the privilege to testimony in a judicial proceeding. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Breland
green
1 sentence1985“If . . . the risk of harassment through both a misdemeanor and felony prosecution may be outweighed by the risk that a defendant guilty of a felony may escape proper punishment, as is true in the present case, by a parity of reasoning the rule against multiple punishment is satisfied by a provision in the judgment that the defendant be given credit for the time served pursuant to the sentence imposed in the misdemeanor case.” (People v. Breland, supra, 243 Cal.App.2d at p. 652 .) Respondent also urges that Wilson and Breland are not controlling here because the victim was in critical conditio | 1 | 1985–1985 |