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
1,503 charsThe majority also questions whether the adoption of the Mann rule in Oasis is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683 [54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775, 151 P.3d 1185] (Taus). (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1208-1210.) In Taus, the plaintiff sued the defendants for investigating, publishing and publically discussing her background and private life without her consent. (Taus, at p. 689.) The defendants filed a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute and the trial court granted the motion as to some of the causes of action that had' been alleged but not others. (Id. at p. 702.) The defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeal evaluated the individual factual claims contained within the causes of action that were at issue and ruled that the lawsuit could go forward based on four of those claims. (Id. at p. 711.) Only the defendants filed a petition for review; therefore, the issue before our Supreme Court was quite narrow: “whether the Court of Appeal properly concluded that dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute was improper with regard to . . . four incidents or conduct allegedly engaged in by one or more of the defendants.” (Ibid.) Our Supreme Court evaluated those four incidents at length and mled the anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted as to three of them, but that the action could proceed as to one of them. (Id. at p. 742.) Taus never analyzed the propriety of striking some, but not all, alleged wrongful acts supporting a cause of action.