Legal Opinion

Jirku v. Brod.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 25, 1919No. Civ. No. 3013PublishedCited by 10 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, P. J.

This is an action against defendant for a malicious prosecution, for causing the arrest of the plaintiff upon a criminal charge. At the conclusion of all the testimony in the case, the court, without hearing argument on the evidence, and of its own motion, instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, which the jury did. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff appeals. The action of the court in instructing the jury to return a verdict for the defendant is the only error of which the appellant complains.

Plaintiff published and circulated a statement in the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Davis v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Potter v. SealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
  4. Smith v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Richter v. NeilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  2. Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. WoolridgeArizona Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Murphy v. RussellArizona Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Starkweather v. EddyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Fowler v. RuebelmannIdaho Supreme Court · 1943

5 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