SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: dantecristo who wrote (2143)11/27/2001 10:14:12 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Read Replies (2) of 12465
 
Mary,

Seems to me today's court decision -- which is now "binding on state court trial judges throughout the state" -- could have an affect on your case as perhaps now you can get certain causes of actions tossed out that were previously denied. But I'm not a lawyer and I'm also not sure what rules apply once a trial has commenced.

In an unpublished decision issued earlier this year, the Court of Appeal in Riverside decided, in agreement with a Los Angeles federal trial judge, that statements made on an Internet bulletin board about a company whose stock is publicly traded are a matter of public interest and thus are protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The court further decided that the mere fact that the speaker may be a competitor of the plaintiff does not mean that it is not expressing its free speech rights.

Attorneys for Public Citizen, which had not previously been involved in the case, intervened to ask the Court of Appeal to publish its decision so all citizens of California could benefit from the holding. Under California law, unpublished appellate decisions cannot be cited as precedent, but published rulings of an appellate court in one part of the state are binding on state court trial judges throughout the state.

In a Nov. 15 decision, the court reconsidered its prior ruling and decided to make its position binding precedent. The new ruling is Computer XPress, Inc. v. Jackson, No. E027841 (Cal. App., 4th Dist. Div. 2).

- Jeff
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News