Scrivani v. Dondero
California Supreme Court
■ The instruction referring to “presumed” malice was to the effect that if the jury were satisfied “that defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, actual or presumed,” they might “give damages for the sake of example, and by way of punishing defendant.” It was assigned as “error to charge that exemplary damages may be recovered for presumed malice in eases like the present.” Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.
This action is one of malicious prosecution. Defendant appeals from the judgment. It is first insisted that the motion for a nonsuit should have been granted. Whatever may have been the status of the evidence at the time the motion was made, it is not necessary to decide, for the court is clear that, taking all the evidence together, it is sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. It is a well-settled rule that if all the evidence, considered together, supports the judgment, then the order denying the motion for a nonsuit will not be disturbed, however weak the case may have been at the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People v. KilvingtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Ball v. RawlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Holliday v. HollidayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Hess v. Oregon Baking Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1897
- Childers v. San Jose Mercury Printing & Publishing Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Runo v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Van Horn v. Pacific Refining & Roofing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
- Lowe v. San Francisco & Northwestern Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Lyon v. United ModernsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Miller v. LeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.