Ludwig v. Superior Court

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that speech regarding the environmental effects of a mall satisfied the anti-SLAPP statute's \public interest\ requirement
• finding the USS-POSCO rule inapplicable where the plaintiff alleged only four acts, two of which could not have been said to be meritless
• “[A] total of four activities, two of which are not meritless as a matter of law, cannot constitute such a pattern [of baseless opposition].”
• “[A] total of four activities, two of which are not meritless as a matter of law, cannot constitute such a pattern [of baseless opposition].”
• “Sheree Krier . . . filed an action under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA
• “Sheree Krier . . . filed an action under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).