Legal Opinion
Oppenheimer v. Tamblyn
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 22, 1958No. Civ. 22744PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShinn, P. J.
The present action is against W. D. Tamblyn, R. C. Briggs, Irving Gordon and Wayne S. Vance to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Vance demurred to the complaint. The court sustained his demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment in his favor. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment dismissing the action as to Vance.
The complaint alleges: On or about February 15, 1955, defendants maliciously and without probable cause “instituted, caused, procured and instigated a criminal prosecution against the plaintiff for purported violation of section 679 of the Vehicle Code . . . .”…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Jaffe v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Kraner v. HalseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Corea v. HigueraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Pleasant v. SamuelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Simons v. EdouardeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Babb v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Michael J. Von Brimer, Co-Executors of the Estate of Joseph W. Von Brimer, Deceased v. Whirlpool CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- Maxon v. Security Insurance of New Haven ConnecticutCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Shakespeare v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Rutherford v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.