Wallace v. McCubbin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 59 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n deciding whether the 'arising from' requirement is met, a court considers 'the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.' ( § 425.16, subd. (b).)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Optional Capital, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP · 208 Cal. Rptr. 3d 707 - Contreras v. Dowling

2. “for anti-SLAPP purposes [the] gravamen [of plaintiff's cause of action] is defined by the acts on which liability is based .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Optional Capital, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP · 208 Cal. Rptr. 3d 707 - Contreras v. Dowling

3. ““Subdivision (b)(1) of section 425.16 provides that ‘[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.’ Subdivision (e) of section 425.16 elaborates the four types of acts within the ambit of a SLAPP, including, as pertinent here, ‘(4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.’ “A two-step process is used for determining whether an action is a SLAPP. First, the court decides whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity, that is, by demonstrating that the facts underlying the plaintiff’s complaint fit one of the categories spelled out in section 425.16, subdivision (e). If the court finds that such a showing has been made, it must then determine the second step, whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. [Citation.] “ ‘The Legislature enacted section 425.16 to prevent and deter “lawsuits [referred to as SLAPP’s] brought primarily to chill the v”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 224 Cal. App. 4th 125 - Moriarty v. Laramar Management CA1/2