Legal Opinion
Mattel, Inc. v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 28, 2002No. B151826PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HASTINGS, J.
This action for malicious prosecution was filed by plaintiff/respondent Mattel, Inc., following entry of a judgment in favor of respondent against Harry R. Christian, plaintiff in an action for trademark infringement against respondent filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, case No. CV 99-2820 NM (BQRx). Respondents Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, a limited liability partnership, and James B. Hicks, a former partner of Luce, Forward represented Hicks in the district court and are named as defendants in this action, but Christian is not.
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & OlikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Wilcox v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Christian v. Mattel, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarcheCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. DelfinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
- Casa Herrera, Inc. v. BeydounCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- HMS Capital, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Co.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- City of Santa Monica v. StewartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.