Greco v. Greco’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The litigation privilege, found in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b)(2), [ section 47 ] 'applies to any communication (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action.' ( Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205 , 212 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 638 , 786 P.2d 365 ].) The privilege 'immunizes defendants from virtually any tort liability (including claims for fraud), with the sole exception of causes of action for malicious prosecution.' ( Olsen v. Harbison (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 325 , 333 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 460 ].) In the anti-SLAPP context, the litigation privilege presents 'a substantive defense a plaintiff must overcome to demonstrate a probability of prevailing.' ( Flatley v. Mauro [, supra ,] 39 Cal.4th [at p.] 323 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 , 139 P.3d 2 ].) 'Any doubt as to whether the privilege applies is resolved in favor of applying it. [Citations.]' ( Adams v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 521 , 529 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 49 ].)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Crossroads Investors, L.P. v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n

2. “[w]hile [the breach of fiduciary duty] allegations appear to challenge the bringing of the underlying litigation, a protected activity, the [sister's claim] limits the act that caused injury to the taking. In seeking damages and penalties, the [sister's] petition alleges that [the brother] 'in bad faith wrongfully took, and/or concealed, and/or disposed of, property belonging to a principal under a power of attorney' and 'in bad faith wrongfully took, and/or concealed, and/or disposed of, property belonging to a trust and/or estate(s).' There is no allegation that the 'fomenting litigation' or the alleged attempt to disinherit certain beneficiaries caused any injury ; the only 'wrongful injurious act ( s ) alleged by the plaintiff' [citation] is the taking . Thus, the gravamen of this cause of action for purposes of section 425.16 is the taking itself, not the reason for the taking which is alleged to have made the taking wrongful.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 243 - Gaynor v. Bulen

3. “Funding the litigation solely to pursue a vendetta was the reason the activity (i.e., the taking) was allegedly wrongful .... The test under section 425.16 focuses on ... 'the defendant's activity that gives rise to his or her asserted liability-and whether that activity constitutes protected speech or petitioning.' [Citation.] [¶] The taking, whether or not it is actually wrongful and why, does not fall within any of the conduct described in subdivision (e) of section 425.16.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 243 - Gaynor v. Bulen