Legal Opinion

Parrish v. Latham & Watkins

California Supreme Court

Decided August 10, 2017No. S228277PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKruger, J.

To establish liability for the tort of malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must demonstrate, among other things, that the defendant previously caused the commencement or continuation of an action against the plaintiff that was not supported by probable cause. We have held that if an action succeeds after a hearing on the merits, that success ordinarily establishes the existence of probable cause (and thus forecloses a later malicious prosecution suit), even if the result is overturned on appeal or by later ruling of the trial court. ( Wilson v. Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) 28 Cal.4th 811…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Porous Media Corporation v. Pall CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
  2. Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
  3. In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert HafifCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & OlikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Key v. Tyler, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  2. Laker v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  3. Connelly v. Bornstein, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  4. L.G. v. M.B., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  5. Eskamani v. Auto-Owners Ins.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2020

32 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