Legal Opinion
Preluzsky v. Rittigstein
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 16, 1921No. Civ. No. 3061PublishedCited by 3 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtConrey, P. J.
The plaintiff brought this action against Joseph Bittigstein and C. H. Phillips to recover damages for the malicious prosecution of a criminal action against this plaintiff. The action was tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against both defendants. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict. Thereafter defendant Bittigstein alone moved for a new trial. An order having been entered granting that motion, plaintiff has appealed therefrom.
[1] Counsel for appellant first suggest that since the defendant Phillips did not move for a new trial, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Harrison v. Sutter Street RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Fowden v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
3Cited by3 opinions
- Roberts v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1921
- Olinger v. Pacific Greyhound LinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Bishop v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922