California Supreme Court· 8/29/2002
Equilon Enterprises, LLC v. Consumer Cause, Inc.
Citations
- 29 Cal. 4th 53
- 52 P.3d 685
- 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7960
- 124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 507
- 2002 Daily Journal DAR 9945
- 2002 Cal. LEXIS 5701
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding a defendant invoking the anti-SLAPP statute must first make a “threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity.”
- “[T]he statute poses no obstacle to suits that 20 possess minimal merit.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Werdegar
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court· 2002-08-29· cited 1,129×
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USANinth Circuit· 2003-01-31· cited 1,078×
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court· 2002-08-29· cited 935×
- City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court· 2002-08-29· cited 719×
- Neville v. CHUDACOFFCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2008-03-12· cited 146×
- Hilton v. Hallmark CardsNinth Circuit· 2010-03-23· cited 143×
- Bosley Medical Institute, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Bosley Medical Group, S.C., an Illinois Corporation v. Michael Steven KremerNinth Circuit· 2005-04-04· cited 134×
- Rohde v. WolfCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2007-08-13· cited 82×
- Governor Gray Davis Committee v. American Taxpayers AllianceCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2002-09-25· cited 74×
- Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver v. Nicolas ChartierNinth Circuit· 2016-02-17· cited 45×
- Chris Langer v. Milan KiserNinth Circuit· 2023-01-23· cited 43×
- Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2014-06-25· cited 27×
- Greka Integrated, Inc. v. LowreyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2005-11-15· cited 23×
- Troy Group, Inc. v. TilsonC.D. California· 2005-04-01· cited 20×
- Dealertrack, Inc. v. HuberC.D. California· 2006-10-26· cited 11×
- Hilton v. Hallmark CardsNinth Circuit· 2009-08-31· cited 8×
- Gottesman v. SantanaS.D. California· 2017-07-06· cited 8×
- Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. Ultimate Distributors, Inc.N.D. California· 2010-01-22· cited 8×
- Clackamas County Oregon, May 21 v. Clackamas River WaterCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 2016-08-24· cited 6×
- Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc.C.D. California· 2011-08-01· cited 2×
Cites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court· 1975-05-12· cited 4,586×
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court· 1978-01-23· cited 3,039×
- Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court· 2002-08-29· cited 1,129×
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.Supreme Court· 1993-05-03· cited 953×
- Ketchum v. MosesCalifornia Supreme Court· 2001-02-26· cited 949×
- City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court· 2002-08-29· cited 719×
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court· 1999-01-21· cited 692×
- City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc.Supreme Court· 1991-04-01· cited 609×
- Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.California Supreme Court· 1996-12-12· cited 513×
- California Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Board of Rialto Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court· 1997-01-02· cited 391×
- ComputerXpress, Inc. v. JacksonCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2001-11-15· cited 348×
- Wilcox v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1994-08-16· cited 304×
- Church of Scientology v. WollersheimCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1996-02-01· cited 209×
- Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism ClubCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2000-12-13· cited 164×
- Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. PaladinoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2001-05-22· cited 149×
- Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co.California Court of Appeal· 1995-08-09· cited 130×
- People v. LedesmaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1997-07-31· cited 120×
- Dowling v. ZimmermanCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2001-01-09· cited 115×
- Paul for Council v. HanyeczCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2001-01-05· cited 100×
- California Teachers Assn. v. StateCalifornia Supreme Court· 1999-05-10· cited 90×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.