Legal Opinion

Cox v. Griffin

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided April 17, 2019No. D074893PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNares, J.

*189*442The lesson in this case is there are important distinctions between the torts of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Lucinda Cox alleged that Hollis Griffin intentionally filed a false police report accusing Cox of forgery and embezzlement, leading to Cox's arrest and seven-day incarceration. Cox's attorney asked the court to instruct the jury on false arrest (false imprisonment) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cox's complaint did not allege a cause of action for malicious prosecution, and the court did not instruct on malicious prosecution.

After the jury…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Silberg v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Jaffe v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. People v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Paterno v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. 640 Tenth, LP v. NewsomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
  2. 640 Tenth, LP v. NewsomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
  3. Agindotan v. Wells Fargo & Co. CA2/7California Court of Appeal · 2021
  4. Big Lots Stores v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2020
  5. Bird Rock Home Mortgage v. Breaking GroundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025

8 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