Legal Opinion

Shoemaker v. Friedberg

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 21, 1947No. Civ. 3658PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.

This is an appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and from the judgment thereafter entered in favor of defendant.

The action was brought for damages for slander alleged to have been published by defendant on August- 25, 1945, consisting of a statement by him to the effect that plaintiff was suffering from a venereal disease. The answer denied malice and alleged qualified privilege under the provisions of subdivision 3 of section 47 and of section 48 of the Civil Code.

Plaintiff was a married woman whose husband was serving overseas in the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Davis v. HearstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Emde v. San Joaquin County Central Labor CouncilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Snively v. Record Publishing Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Shinglemeyer v. Wright.Michigan Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Locke v. MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Lundquist v. ReusserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  2. McKinney v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  3. Live Oak Publishing Co. v. CohaganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  4. Kemart Corporation, a Corporation v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
  5. Hoesl v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1978

4 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