Roberts v. McAfee, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• Noting that “[a]lthough the California Supreme Court has not addressed the issue, the California Courts of Appeal have uniformly applied the [single-publication] rule to websites.”’
• noting that Hellar does not “address[] the definition of republication; indeed, [it does not] address[] the single-publication rule at all”
• noting that the second element of a California malicious prosecution claim is that the prior proceedings were brought without probable cause
• noting that the rule requires discovery only 18 where the nonmoving party has not had any opportunity to complete discovery that is essential to 19 an opposition for a motion for summary judgment
• articulating that “[e]ven though unpublished California Courts of Appeal decisions have no precedential value under California law, the Ninth Circuit is not precluded from considering such decisions as a possible reflection of California law”
• continuing to host a press release on a website is “inaction” which “is not a republication”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).