(Updated August 26, 2008)
Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. v. Gore (Court of Appeal, 6th District, 2008)
Review granted July 30, 2008 (S164174)
Issues for review: "(1) Which party bears the burden of persuasion with respect to the applicability of the anti-SLAPP exemptions set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (c)? (2) Does Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17, subdivision (c), exempt from anti-SLAPP protection an advertisement by a lawyer soliciting clients for a contemplated lawsuit?"
In re Episcopal Church Cases (Court of Appeal, 4th District, 2007)
Review granted Sept. 12, 2007 (S155094, S155199, S155208, S155687)
Issues for review: "(1) Should the 'principle of government' approach, also known as the 'highest church judicatory' approach, be used to resolve disputes between a local congregation and a national church or regional diocese over ownership of church property, or should these disputes be resolved using a 'neutral principles analysis'? (2) Was the complaint properly subject to a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16? (3) What role does Corporations Code section 9142 play in the analysis and resolution of church property disputes? The court order[ed] briefing in cases S155199 (#07-393), S155208 (#07-394), and S155208 (#07-395), deferred pending decision in case S155094 (#07-392)."
Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club (Court of Appeal, 1st District, 2006)
Review granted June 21, 2006 (S143087)
Issues for review: "Can the exception to the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) for
actions "brought soley in the public interest or on behalf of the general public" (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.17, subd. (b)) apply to a complaint that includes any claim for personal relief?"
Vargas v. City of Salinas (Court of Appeal, 6th District, 2005)
Review granted Feb. 6, 2006 (S140911)
Issues for review: "What is the proper standard for determining when a city has unlawfullly expended public
funds on improper partisan election campaigning? (See Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206.)"