Legal Opinion
Hufstedler, Kaus & Ettinger v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 30, 1996No. B096804PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.
The issue in this malicious prosecution action is whether the extent of the defendant-attorney’s knowledge at the time the underlying lawsuit was filed is always relevant to the determination of probable cause. For the reasons explained below, we hold that it is not.
The Underlying Action
College Savings Bank offers its investors certificates of deposit designed for parents who want to prepay their children’s college education (College-Sure Certificates of Deposit). In the Spring of 1991, the Bank embarked on an advertising campaign to publicize its CDs as superior…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Herbert v. LandoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. ConnaughtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Wilson v. Parker, Covert & ChidesterCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University, LlcCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Sangster v. PaetkauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.