Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Crowley v. Katlemangreen2 sentences2001This result is consistent with the disfavored nature of the malicious prosecution tort, and the view that such claims are too frequently used as a dilatory and harassing device, and that the remedy for frivolous “litigation does not lie in an expansion of malicious prosecution liability.” (Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 873 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 765 P.2d 498 ]; see also Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 680 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 , 881 P.2d 1083 ].) In a related argument, the Chavezes contend that because the court in the underlying action determined Mendoza’s 2001This result is consistent with the disfavored nature of the malicious prosecution tort, and the view that such claims are too frequently used as a dilatory and harassing device, and that the remedy for frivolous “litigation does not lie in an expansion of malicious prosecution liability.” (Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 873 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 765 P.2d 498 ]; see also Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 680 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 , 881 P.2d 1083 ].) In a related argument, the Chavezes contend that because the court in the underlying action determined Mendoza’s | 2 | 2 |
Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Olikergreen2 sentences2001This result is consistent with the disfavored nature of the malicious prosecution tort, and the view that such claims are too frequently used as a dilatory and harassing device, and that the remedy for frivolous “litigation does not lie in an expansion of malicious prosecution liability.” (Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 873 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 765 P.2d 498 ]; see also Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 680 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 , 881 P.2d 1083 ].) In a related argument, the Chavezes contend that because the court in the underlying action determined Mendoza’s 2001This result is consistent with the disfavored nature of the malicious prosecution tort, and the view that such claims are too frequently used as a dilatory and harassing device, and that the remedy for frivolous “litigation does not lie in an expansion of malicious prosecution liability.” (Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 873 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 765 P.2d 498 ]; see also Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 680 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 , 881 P.2d 1083 ].) In a related argument, the Chavezes contend that because the court in the underlying action determined Mendoza’s | 1 | 2 |
Wilcox v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2001(Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 823 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446 ].) Thus, a determination that the antiSLAPP statute applies to a malicious prosecution claim will not prevent valid malicious prosecution claims, but will require a plaintiff bringing this claim to demonstrate early on that the complaint is supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment. 2001(Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 823 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446 ].) Thus, a determination that the antiSLAPP statute applies to a malicious prosecution claim will not prevent valid malicious prosecution claims, but will require a plaintiff bringing this claim to demonstrate early on that the complaint is supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2024(State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234 , 1243 (Bodde).) Nelson’s failure to name a public entity in his original complaint is all the more perplexing because he complied with the Act when he submitted a prelitigation claim to the District. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Melton v. Boustred
green
1 sentence2021(See Melton, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 542 .) A plaintiff bringing a claim against a former landowner should not be able to avoid the limitation on such a claim that our Supreme Court carefully constructed in Preston simply by relabeling a negligence claim as a claim for nuisance. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021(See Copenbarger, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 15 .) Mai responds by voicing her concern that the protections of the client-attorney privilege are impermissibly undermined if a plaintiff bringing a claim for attorney’s fees as damages is required to disclose bills during discovery. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.