Legal Opinion
Hayashida v. Kakimoto
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 23, 1933No. Docket No. 7816PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBALD, J., pro tem.
A demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint for damages for alleged malicious prosecution was sustained without leave to amend. From the judgment entered thereafter plaintiff has appealed.
The complaint alleges in substance that defendants, “by sending” letters dated April 1, 1930, and April 27, 1930, and a telegram dated April 28, 1930, to the “Board of Special Inquiry of the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Immigration”, “the contents of each being unknown to plaintiff, instigated and procured the detention of plaintiff by the Board of Special Inquiry…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hicks v. BrantleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Wass v. . StephensNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- United States ex rel. Mylius v. UhlCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- Haddad v. McDowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Maskell v. BarkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hardy v. VialCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Al Raschid v. News Syndicate Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Maxon v. Security Insurance of New Haven ConnecticutCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Floro v. LawtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Vargas v. GiacosaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.