Legal Opinion

Cruz v. Homebase

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 19, 2000No. B128058PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NEAL, J.

Summary

Where a jury hearing a store patron’s claims for battery, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution found for the patron on the battery claim, but hung on the others, it was proper thereafter to try only the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims to a second jury, with appropriate admonitions about the prior battery verdict. A corporation is not deemed to ratify misconduct, and thus become liable for punitive damages, unless its officer, director, or managing agent actually knew about the misconduct and its malicious character. A “managing agent” is an…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pembaur v. City of CincinnatiSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Soule v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
  3. White v. Ultramar, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999
  4. College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Valentine v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1999

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
  2. Khaligh v. Hadaegh (In Re Khaligh)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  3. Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin CorporationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  4. Huffman v. INTERSTATE BRANDS COMPANIESCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  5. Romo v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 2002

36 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