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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 12 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Metcalf v. U-Haul International, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Metcalf v. U-Haul International, Inc. Anchor | green | “commercial defendants were invoking the procedural protections of the anti-slapp statute by claiming their advertising impacted the public interest.” | 3 |
| 2 | Metcalf v. U-Haul International, Inc. | green | “the anti-slapp statute by claiming their advertising impacted the public interest.” | 3 |
| 3 | In Re Copper Mountain Securities Litigation | green | “the information in this release includes forward-looking statements” | 3 |
| 4 | JAMS, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County | green | “anti-slapp motions are reviewed through a two-step process. 'first, the court must determine "whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.