Jirku v. Brod.
California Court of Appeal
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
- Davis v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
- Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Potter v. SealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Smith v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by10 opinions
- Richter v. NeilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. WoolridgeArizona Supreme Court · 1960
- Murphy v. RussellArizona Supreme Court · 1932
- Starkweather v. EddyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Fowler v. RuebelmannIdaho Supreme Court · 1943
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.