Stevens v. Chisholm
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Frank McGowan, Arthur Lindauer, and Blaine McGowan, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
The plaintiff, an attorney at law, was successful in an action for damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant appeals from the judgment.
In their brief, counsel for appellant contend that actions for alleged malicious prosecution of civil causes are not favored by law; that as matter of law, under undisputed testimony, the court should have found that defendant had probable cause for instituting the action against Mr. Stevens; that evidence of malice is entirely lacking; and that defendant is relieved of liability because she acted upon advice of counsel in bringing suit against said…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Eastin v. Bank of StocktonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Wheeler v. HansonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Marshall v. BetnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Strain v. IrwinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Drumm v. CessnumSupreme Court of Kansas · 1900
3Cited by17 opinions
- Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Babb v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp.California Supreme Court · 1963
- Tri-State Hospital Supply Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2003
- Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.