Legal Opinion

Lackner v. LaCroix

California Supreme Court

Decided November 27, 1979No. S.F. 24007PublishedCited by 130 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CLARK, J.

Plaintiff Jerome A. Lackner appeals from judgment of dismissal in an action for malicious prosecution. We affirm that judgment.

Defendant Roscoe Bailey, represented by defendant attorneys Edward LaCroix and Joseph Schumb, commenced a medical malpractice action against Lackner and others. The jury found the complaint had not been filed within the applicable limitations period as against Lackner, and the court dismissed as to him. Lackner then brought the instant action for malicious prosecution and defendants moved for summary judgment. In support of their motion defendants…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Babb v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Jaffe v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Minasian v. SapseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  5. Hurgren v. Union Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by130 opinions

  1. Murphy v. LynnCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
  2. Esau Awabdy v. City of Adelanto Scott Burnell Ted Hartz Richard Althouse, Michael Sakamoto, Does I-X, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  3. DeLaurentis v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  4. Sacco v. High Country Independent Press, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Casa Herrera, Inc. v. BeydounCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004

125 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