Bidna v. Rosen
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SILLS, P. J.
I
The trajectory of the case law now governing malicious prosecution claims arising out of family law proceedings arcs toward one destination: a bright line barring any such claims, no matter how egregious the defendant’s conduct in the family law action. The present case (at least as pled) is egregious indeed, and forces us to ponder whether the arc should be completed.
After the trial court awarded primary physical custody of a couple’s daughter to the husband, the wife’s mother told him that she would use her superior financial resources to keep reopening custody issues…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
- Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & OlikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Christensen v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Cervantez v. J. C. Penney Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
- Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernard, Weiss & Karma Inc.California Supreme Court · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- One Thousand Fleet Ltd. Partnership v. GuerrieroCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- Cheong Yu Yee v. Don CheungCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Caudle v. MendelAlaska Supreme Court · 1999
- Drummond v. DesmaraisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Begier v. StromCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.