Section 425
- Citation
- Section 425
- Parent Document
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2011-06-27
Other Sections in This Document (190)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011)
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
- Section 425
Full Text
400 chars*1211The trial court held that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because the gravamen of the causes of action was a breach of the duty of loyalty rather than petitioning activity. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the claims arose from protected activity and Oasis had failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing because there was no rule that barred the attorney from doing what he did.