No. 21-40
Lumbsden A. Sangster v. Anthony Valencia
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights defamation evidence evidence-tampering fair-report-privilege free-speech police-communication press-communication section-47
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-12-03
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the fair report privilege applies to a private communication between a police officer and a member of the press in a defamation case
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED . (1) Whether the fair report privilege apply to a private ‘ communication between a police officer and a member of . ' the press is supported in a defamation cases. (2) Whether Section § 47 (a), is privilege even though ; physical evidence were planted/altered in furtherance qualified a defendant for this subdivision in a defamation case. (See Section § 47(b)(2)). ; (3) Does the California Evidence Code EVID § 250, apply to evidence of records marked as exhibits in a , complaint. : af , 7 ; PARTIES TO PROCEEDING BELOW — . . The
Docket Entries
2021-12-06
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-11-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/3/2021.
2021-10-19
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-10
Waiver of right of respondent Anthony Valencia to respond filed.
2021-07-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 11, 2021)
Attorneys
Anthony Valencia
Matthew John Marnell — San Bernardino County Counsel, Respondent
Matthew John Marnell — San Bernardino County Counsel, Respondent