Legal Opinion

Lumpkin v. Friedman

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 5, 1982No. Civ. 63728PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

COMPTON, J.

In this action for malicious prosecution the trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s first amended complaint and dismissed the action. The trial court concluded that plaintiff had failed to plead properly that the previous underlying action had been terminated favorably to her. By taking judicial notice of the file in the previous action the trial court concluded that it would be impossible for plaintiff ever truthfully to plead that essential element of a cause of action for malicious prosecution. We disagree and reverse.

The case presents a novel issue which appears…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lackner v. LaCroixCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Minasian v. SapseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  3. Stanley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
  4. Martinez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Cult Awareness Network v. Church of Scientology InternationalIllinois Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Daniels v. RobbinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. Ross v. KishCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  4. Eells v. RosenblumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  5. Pattiz v. MinyeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998

4 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