Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Lumbsden A. Sangster v. Anthony Valencia
Paid petition · Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, No. E073478 · judgment November 19, 2020
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
-
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.
-
Whether Section § 47 (d), 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)).
-
Does the California Evidence Code EVID § 250, apply to evidence of records marked as exhibits in a complaint.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Lumbsden A. Sangster
For respondent
Matthew John Marnell
San Bernardino County Counsel
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Dec 06 2021Rehearing DENIED.
- Nov 09 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/3/2021.
- Oct 19 2021Petition for Rehearing filed.
- Oct 04 2021Petition DENIED.
- Aug 18 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
- Aug 10 2021Waiver of right of respondent Anthony Valencia to respond filed.
- Jul 01 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 11, 2021)