Somerstein v. Gutierrez
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOOD, Chief Judge.
This is a malicious prosecution case. One of the elements to be proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, is that no probable cause existed for the prosecution. Meraz v. Valencia et al., 28 N.M. 174, 210 P. 225 (1922). The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with prejudice, at the close of all the evidence. It did so on the basis that "... Plaintiff did not prove that the Defendants [Preston and Rhodes Department Store] acted without probable cause in initiating or procuring the arrest of the Plaintiff. ...” Defendant Gutierrez had been dismissed previously…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dahl v. TurnerNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
- Barnett v. Cal M, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1968
- Yucca Ford, Inc. v. ScarsellaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1973
- Meraz v. ValenciaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1922
- Marchbanks v. YoungNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1943
3Cited by6 opinions
- DeVaney v. Thriftway Marketing Corp.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1997
- G & G SERVICES, INC. v. Agora Syndicate, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1999
- Maldonado v. HaneyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1980
- Maldonado v. HaneyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1980
- Yucca Ford, Inc. v. ScarsellaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.