Legal Opinion

Bernstein v. Maimes

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 8, 1954No. Civ. 19818; Civ. 19819PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOOD (Parker), J.

These two actions for damages for malicious prosecution were consolidated for trial and, in a trial by jury, judgments were for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals from the judgments and the orders denying his motions for new trials.

Plaintiff Samuel Bernstein (referred to herein as Samuel) and defendant Maimes had been acquaintances about 15 years. In the view of the evidence most favorable to plaintiffs, some of the facts are as follows: In 1949, Samuel told Maimes that he intended to open an upholstering business. Maimes, who intended to open a furniture and upholstering business…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Centers v. Dollar MarketsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  2. Siffert v. McDowellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  3. Bivens v. HaberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Masterson v. Pig'n Whistle Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1958
  2. Rupp v. SummerfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  3. Consumers Filling Station Co. v. DuranteWyoming Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Fry v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  5. Monroe v. LashusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959

1 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