Legal Opinion

Hirshberg v. Strauss

California Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1883PublishedCited by 36 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts appear in the opinion of the court.

1Per curiam

In this case, which was an action against the sheriff and attaching creditors of David S. Hirshberg to recover damages for maliciously levying an attachment on certain goods, the property of plaintiff’s intestate, Samuel Hirshberg, the court charged the jury, among other matters, as follows:—

“In addition to the actual value, you have a right to give exemplary damages, if the proof satisfies you that the goods were wantonly or maliciously taken from the plaintiff, and on this subject I charge you that if you find that the plaintiff, before any action taken by the defendants, purchased the…

2Cited by36 opinions

  1. State v. MoormanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  2. Strandt v. CannonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  3. Rahke v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Darnell v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1976
  5. State v. VerganadisNevada Supreme Court · 1926

31 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