Legal Opinion

McKenna v. Heinlen

California Supreme Court

Decided March 17, 1900No. Sac. No. 602PublishedCited by 21 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Action for malicious prosecution. The court made an order granting 'defendants’ motion for nonsuit and entered judgment accordingly, from which, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals. The original suit, which is complained of as having been maliciously instituted, was a civil action for the recovery of money alleged to have been appropriated by McKenna while in the employ of John Heinlen, and resulted in a judgment in favor of McKenna. Heinlin appealed from the judgment to this court; the appeal was dismissed and the judgment became final.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ball v. RawlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Grant v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  3. Smith v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Michel v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Burke v. WattsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Singleton v. SingletonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  4. Haydel v. MortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  5. Moore v. DurrerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

16 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