Legal Opinion

Dawson v. Schloss

California Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1892No. 14085PublishedCited by 44 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial.. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Vanclief, C.

Action for malicious prosecution on a charge of perjury in verifying an answer in an action by Schloss and others against Dawson and others. On the first trial, plaintiff recovered a judgment against both defendants for the sum of five thousand dollars and costs. A new trial was granted to Schloss alone.

The new trial resulted in a verdict and judgment against Schloss for three thousand dollars, and Schloss alone appeals from this judgment against him, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

Both trials were by jury, and the judgment against Hinkle remains in force,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Livingston v. BishopNew York Supreme Court · 1806
  2. Harkrader v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  3. Urton v. PriceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Eddelbuttel v. DurrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  5. People v. LopezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881

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

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Fowden v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Swift v. Occidental Mining & Petroleum Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Franzen v. ShenkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Burke v. WattsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Ball v. GussenhovenMontana Supreme Court · 1904

39 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