Legal Opinion

Nelson v. Hill

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1924No. 2823PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

PARKER, C. J.

This is an action for malicious prosecution in which recovery was had against the appellant- from which judgment he has appealed.

1. The first point presented is to the effect that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, and consequently will not support the judgment. The argument is that the complaint shows that the accusation, before the justice of the peace, failed to charge a crime, and therefore the wrong, if any, was false imprisonment rather than malicious prosecution.

Some general considerations may tend to clear up what seems to be a much mooted…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Antcliff v. JuneMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  2. McIntosh v. WalesWyoming Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Ross v. HixonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
  4. Satilla Manufacturing Co. v. CasonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
  5. Meraz v. ValenciaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1922

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Kuhnhausen v. StadelmanOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Sweitzer v. SanchezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
  3. Montgomery v. VigilNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Gogue v. MacDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Apodaca v. MillerNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1968

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API